PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

PLAGIAT PLAGIATMERUPAKAN MERUPAKANTINDAKAN TINDAKANTIDAK TIDAKTERPUJI TERPUJI

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CURRICULUM 2013

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education

By Fransiska Stefanny Olive Kurniawan Student Number: 111214041

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY 2015 i


A Sarjana Pendidikan Thesis on ii


iii


DEDICATION PAGE

“I am the painter and sculptor of my own life.”

-Y. B. Pigimana-

Dedicated to:

Pigimana’s Big Family Sukardjo’s Big Family My Beloved Friends iv


STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work or parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and the references, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, 10 September 2015

The Writer

Fransiska Stefanny Olive Kurniawan 111214041

v


PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI LEMBAR PERNYATAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Fransiska Stefanny Olive Kurniawan Nomor Mahasiswa : 111214041 Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul: SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CURRICULUM 2013 beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian, saya memberikan kepada Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu minta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis. Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta Pada tanggal: 10 September 2015 Yang menyatakan

Fransiska Stefanny Olive Kurniawan

vi


ABSTRACT

Kurniawan, F. S. O. (2015). Senior High School English Teachers’ Perception onthe Implementation of Curriculum 2013. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University. The curriculum implementation is supposed to be the realization of a vision, mission, and goal of the national educational system. The latest curriculum which was announced by the Ministry of Culture and Education in 2013 was called Curriculum 2013. There were a lot of problems which occurred in the implementation of this curriculum. Since this curriculum had many positive and negative sides, there were various perceptions from the Senior High School English teachers on the implementation of Curriculum 2013, especially in terms of assessment. There are two research problems in this research. (1). What is Senior High School English teachers’ perception to the implementation of Curriculum 2013? (2). What is Senior High School English teachers’ perception to the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013? This research used qualitative approach. The participants of this research were four Senior High School English teachers from various schools. This research used interview as a data gathering technique. The interview for the first three participants was done after the implementation of Curriculum 2013. Meanwhile, the interview for the fourth participant was done during the implementation of Curriculum 2013, since the school is still implementing Curriculum 2013. It could be concluded that the Senior High School English teachers had a negative perception on the implementation of Curriculum 2013. First, the implementation of Curriculum 2013 seemed to be in a rush. Second, the participants were not ready to implement Curriculum 2013. Third, the implementation of Curriculum 2013 was lack of preparation. Fourth, the applications for Core Competences and Basic Competences in Curriculum 2013 were unclear. Fifth, Curriculum 2013 did not provide enough time to make a more challenging material for the students. Sixth, Curriculum 2013 made the students chose their discipline in early grade. Besides, there was also a negative perception on the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013. First, the participant had a problem in distingushing between cognitive and psychomotor assessment. Second, the assessment requirements were very burdensome. Third, the time allocation to implement the all of the assessment requirements was too short. Fourth, the affective assessment format was subjective. Fifth, the system to fill up the assessment forms was time consuming. Keywords: perception, implementation, assessment, Curriculum 2013

vii


ABSTRAK Kurniawan, F. S. O. (2015). Senior High School English Teachers’ Perception on the Implementation of Curriculum 2013. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University. Pengimplementasian kurikulum seharusnya menjadi perwujudan visi, misi, dan tujuan dari sistem pendidikan nasional. Kurikulum yang paling baru, yang dibuat oleh Kementeran Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan pada tahun 2013 disebut Kurikulum 2013. Di samping itu, banyak masalah yang muncul dalam penerapan Kurikulum 2013. Oleh karena kurikulum ini memiliki segi positif dan negatif, muncul berbagai persepsi guru mata pelajaran Bahasa Inggris dari Sekolah Menengah Atas mengenai implementasi Kurikulum 2013 ini, khususnya dari segi penilaian. Dalam penelitian ini, ada dua rumusan masalah. 1. Apa persepsi guru mengenai implementasi Kurikulum 2013? 2. Apa persepsi guru mengenai penerapan aspek penilaian dalam Kurikulum 2013? Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif. Partisipan dalam penelitian ini diambil dari empat guru Bahasa Inggris yang mengajar di SMA yang berbeda. Penelitian ini menggunakan wawancara sebagai instrumen penelitian. Wawancara yang dilakukan terhadap tiga partisipan pertama dilakukan setelah ketiga guru selesai menerapkan Kurikulum 2013. Sedangkan, wawancara yang dilakukan terhadap partisipan keempat dilakukan di saat guru tersebut sedang menerapkan Kurikulum 2013, karena sekolah tempat beliau mengajar masih menerapkan Kurikulum 2013. Dari hasil analisis, dapat disimpulkan bahwa guru mata pelajaran Bahasa Inggris SMA memiliki persepsi negatif terhadap pelaksanaan Kurikulum 2013. Pertama, pelaksanaan Kurikulum 2013 terkesan terburu-buru. Kedua, para partisipan merasa tidak siap untuk menerapkan Kurikulum 2013. Ketiga, pelaksanaan Kurikulum 2013 terkesang kurangnya persiapan. Keempat, aplikasi untuk Kompetensi Inti dan Kompetensi Dasar di Kurikulum 2013 tidak jelas. Kelima, Kurikulum 2013 tidak memberikan cukup waktu bagi guru untuk membuat materi yang lebih menantang bagi siswa. Keenam, Kurikulum 2013 membuat siswa memilih disiplin kelas terlalu dini. Selain itu, ada juga persepsi negatif terhadap pelaksanaan penilaian di Kurikulum 2013. Pertama, partisipan mengalami kesulitan dalam membedakan antara penilaian kognitif dan psikomotor. Kedua, persyaratan penilaian yang sangat memberatkan. Ketiga, alokasi waktu untuk melaksanakan semua persyaratan penilaian terlalu pendek. Keempat, format penilaian afektif terkesan subjektif. Kelima, sistem untuk mengisi formulir penilaian memakan banyak waktu. Kata kunci: perception, implementation, assessment, Curriculum 2013

viii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like thank God for the strength, guidance, and blessings to me during the process of finishing this thesis. Without His grace, I may not be able to finish this thesis and to attain this degree. I would also like to thank Mother Mary for listening to all of my prayers. I would like to express my deep gratitude to my beloved advisor, Markus Budiraharjo, Ed.D. for his help, guidance, support, and advice from the beginning until the end process of finishing my thesis. His motivation always brings more energy to finish this thesis cheerfully. I also thank Paulus Kuswandono, Ph.D. and Barli Bram, Ph.D. for their time to check this thesis. My deep gratitude also goes to the research participants, whom I cannot mention the names, for their willingness to take part of this research. I would also give my sincere gratitude to my parents, Bapak Julius Agustinus Dwi Budi Susila and Ibu Martha Gani Sri Florida Madyastuti, for their endless love, care, prayers, and support during my study, so that I can finish this thesis. I could not imagine how I could finish this thesis without their support. I would like to thank my brother, Blacius Fandy Febrian Kurniawan for his love, prayers, and support. I would like to thank Unit Bea Siswa Badan Pendidikan Kristen Penabur for the financial and non-financial support during my study and the process of finishing my thesis. My study in Sanata Dharma University will not be colorful without the love and support from my friends. First, I would like to thank ELESP students of batch 2011, especially PBI Class A Family, and our beloved Bunda Christina Lhaksmita Anandari, Ed.M. Second, I would also like to give my gratitude to Br. Titus, Anin, Sella, Tina, and Merry, Vania, Ana and Tamtam for motivating me and sharing joy, tears, and spirit from the beginning until the end of my study. Third, my gratitude also goes to Pingkan, and Domination Team (Dona, Desy, Ole, Inge, and Ellen) for their love, care, and support in my life. Fourth, this gratitude also goes to my partners in crime, Dita and Stella, for every ix


moment we shared in our togetherness. Fifth, I would like to thank my partners in Englicious Community for giving a lot of inspiration and being a place to improve my English. My special gratitude goes to Fa’adilah Malik Akbar for the love, care, patient and support during the highest and lowest part in my life. I could not imagine how to finish my thesis without his motivation. Finally, I would also like to thank the readers of this thesis and everyone, whom I cannot mention one by one, for the love, support, prayers, and help during the process of finishing this thesis. May Jesus Christ always be with them.

Fransiska Stefanny Olive Kurniawan

x


TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ............................................................................................................... i APPROVAL PAGES .................................................................................................. ii DEDICATION PAGE ................................................................................................ iv STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ......................................................... v PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ........................................................ vi ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... vii ABSTRAK .................................................................................................................. viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................... ix TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... xi LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF FIGURE ................................................................................................... xiv LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................... xv CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION A. Research Background..................................................................................... 1 B. Research Problems ......................................................................................... 6 C. Research Limitation ....................................................................................... 6 D. Research Objectives ....................................................................................... 7 E. Research Benefits ........................................................................................... 7 F. Definition of Terms ........................................................................................ 8 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A. Theoretical Description ................................................................................ 11 1. Curriculum Definition .............................................................................. 11 2. Curriculum in Indonesia ........................................................................... 13 a. School-Based Curriculum .................................................................... 13 b. Curriculum 2013 .................................................................................. 14 1) The Objectives of the 2013 Curriculum .......................................... 14 2) Scientific Approach in the 2013 Curriculum .................................. 15 3) The Fields of Assessment in the 2013 Curriculum ......................... 15 3. Perception Theory .................................................................................... 16 a. The Nature of Perception...................................................................... 16 b. Factors Influencing Perception............................................................. 17 4. Self-agency Theory .................................................................................. 20 5. Teacher Professionalism .......................................................................... 21 6. Pedagogical Content Knowledge ............................................................. 23 7. Adult Learning Theory ............................................................................. 23 B. Theoretical Framework ................................................................................ 24 CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A. Research Method .......................................................................................... 26 B. Research Participants ................................................................................... 27 C. Research Setting ........................................................................................... 28 xi


D. E. F. G.

Research Bias ............................................................................................... 29 Instrument and Data Gathering Technique .................................................. 29 Data Analysis Technique ............................................................................. 31 Research Procedure ...................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Research Results ........................................................................................... 35 1. Senior High School English Teachers’ Perception on the Implementation of Curriculum 2013........................................................ 35 2. Senior High School English Teachers’ Perception on the Implementation of Assessment in Curriculum 2013 ................................ 41 B. Discussion ..................................................................................................... 45 1. Senior High School English Teachers’ Perception on the Implementation of Curriculum 2013 ........................................................ 46 2. Senior High School English Teachers’ Perception on the Implementation of Assessment in Curriculum 2013 ................................ 50 3. Additional Factors which Influenced the Senior High School English Teachers in Implementing Curriculum 2013 .............................. 54 4. Some Strategies to Prevent The Senior High School English Teachers from Being Trapped by the Problems which Occured in Implementing Curriculum 2013 ........................................................... 57 CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS A. Conclusions ................................................................................................ 62 B. Suggestions ................................................................................................. 64 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 67 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 71

xii


LIST OF FIGURE

Figure

Page

3.1 Example on How the Researcher Categorized the Interview Transcript .............. 32

xiii


LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

Page

Appendix A. Question Guideline ................................................................................ 71 Appendix B. Horizonalization .................................................................................... 74 Appendix C. Lembar Persetujuan Menjadi Informan ................................................ 80 Appendix D. Approach to Participants ....................................................................... 82

xiv


CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This research investigates the perception of English teachers from three different cities, namely Yogyakarta, South Tangerang, and North Jakarta. In order to make the research become more specific, there are six sections in this chapter. They are research background, research problems, problem limitations, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms.

A. Research Background Apple (1979) in Braslavsky (2005) states that curriculum is originally related to the concept of a course which is followed by a pupil in a teaching institution. The concept of curriculum is used in the English-speaking tradition as an equivalent to the French concept programmed’études. In fact, the term curriculum is mostly used to refer to the existing contract between the society, the state, and the educational professionals, with regard to the educational experiences that the learners should undergo during a certain phase of their lives. In Indonesia, a curriculum is designed by the government, under the responsibility of Ministry of Culture and Education (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan), including the syllabus and assessment formats. Curriculum is used to support the educational institutions in the teaching and learning activity. According to Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2014) “curriculum is 1


2 one of some elements that gives a contribution to develop the quality of the students in Indonesia” (p. 2). Curriculum is one of the government’s concerns to improve the quality and the educational system. One of the ways to improve the educational system is by developing the curriculum based on the demand of the time. Curriculum becomes the guideline for the teachers and school’s institution in standardizing the educational system in Indonesia. Since its purpose is to be a guideline during a certain period of the time, the curriculum is developed based on the demands of the time. The latest curriculum which is announced by the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2013 is called Curriculum 2013. There are many positive sides of Curriculum 2013. First, for the Senior High School students, Curriculum 2013 gives the opportunity to learn about the other subjects from another discipline. According to Global Indonesian Voice (2013), with this new feature, the ministry wants to change the paradigm that the students who take Natural Science Class are smarter than the others. Second, through the scientific approach, Curriculum 2013 gives the students a chance to experience discovery learning. Third, Curriculum 2013 also builds the students’ characteristics and nationalism. Besides, this curriculum also emphasizes on religious values. However, there are many negative sides of Curriculum 2013. First, this Curriculum spends a high cost budget for the implementation, especially for the training and distributing the textbooks. Meanwhile, there are some teachers who


3 have not been trained by the government, before implementing Curriculum 2013. Second, many districts are not ready to apply this curriculum. Many teachers are still confused with the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013. Third, the students have a lot of pressure in order to survive with Curriculum 2013, because there are a lot of aspects which are needed to be assessed during a short period of time. Since many educational parties are not ready to implement the Curriculum 2013, multiple doubts are directed to the effectiveness of this curriculum in enhancing the students’ skill. Teachers and education experts say that they are still in the dark over details about the new guidelines. The subjects are too absurd to teach. Retno Listyarti, the Indonesian Teachers Unions Federation (FSGI) secretary-general emphasizes that the new curriculum, consisting of civic education and religion being integrated with science, was too complicated for teachers. This problem forces the teachers to understand the curriculum by themselves. Moreover, Retno said that with teachers having only a few months to fully grasp the integrated subjects, they had to receive complete information from the Education and Culture Ministry about the new curriculum. So far, what is available for them is an incomplete document of standards and competency for the students (The Jakarta Post, 2013).

Moreover, the teachers face

many challenges

related to

the

implementation of Curriculum 2013. According to Seven Pillar Institute (2014), agency theory is in regards to “one party determines the work while another party does the work” (p. 1). Briefly, the teachers are the executors of a curriculum. However, the teachers are also expected to make an effort on the implementation of the curriculum. Besides, the teachers are responsible to give a meaningful learning to the students, despite having the responsibility with administrative requirements. Besides having a lot of policies, Curriculum 2013 also makes the teachers think creatively in gathering new ideas for the teaching and learning


4 activity in the classroom. There are many assessment forms which are needed to be filled. Therefore, some teachers are distraught with assessment preparations, rather than making an enjoyable learning activity for the students. Besides self-agency, there are many factors which can be used to see the way the teachers implement the Curriculum 2013, namely teacher professionalism and pedagogic competence. Kelly, Shulman, Wilson and Tamir in Budiraharjo (2013) state that “literature on the provision of professional teacher development program represents the complexity of education as a highly contested field in terms of morality, ideology, and instrumentality (p. 6)”. Without knowing the needs of professionalism, the needs of education will only lead to faddism. Meanwhile, Shulman (1987) states that “pedagogical content knowledge is the category most likely to distinguish the understanding of the content specialist from that of the pedagogue” (p. 5).

Curriculum 2013 expects the

teachers to involve the learners building a critical thinking concept. Thus, the function of the teachers is no longer as the learning source. In order to engage the learners in critical thinking methods, the teachers should have the ability to scaffold the materials based on the students’ mastering level. According to Hoffman (2009), a primary goal of perception is to recover or estimate the objective properties of the physical world. Moreover, Hoffman (2009) also states that “a primary goal of perceptual categorization is to recover or estimate, the objective statistical structure of the physical world” (p. 3.). If the teachers consider that the Curriculum 2013 has a good implementation and they do not find any difficulty in understanding the implementation of Curriculum


5 2013, they will perceive the implementation of Curriculum 2013 positively. Meanwhile, if the teachers consider that the Curriculum 2013 has a good implementation of assessment, they will not make the administrative requirement, especially assessment forms, as a burden. Eventually, the teachers will perceive the implementation of Curriculum 2013 positively. In this research, assessment means the assessment forms which consist of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor assessment. Based on the researcher’s survey, filling the assessment forms was the most fundamental thing which was found in teachers’ implementation of Curriculum 2013. Therefore, the researcher wanted to figure out the Senior High School English teachers’ perception on the implementation of assessment in Curriculum 2013. Besides, the Senior High School English teachers were chosen because the researcher conducted the survey about the implementation of Curriculum 2013 during the Internship Program Course (Program Pengalaman Lapangan) in one of a private Senior High Schools in Jogjakarta. Based on this background, the researcher decided to focus on two things in figuring out the Senior High School English teachers’ perception on Currciulum 2013. The first one was the implementation of Curriculum 2013 in general. Meanwhile, the second one was the implementation of assessment in Curriculum 2013. Since there were many problems which were found in the implementation, the researcher wanted to figure out the Senior High School English teachers’ perception in implementing the Curriculum 2013.


6 B. Research Problems In this research, the researcher would like to address two questions related to the Senior High School English teacher’s perceptions on the implementation of Curriculum 2013. 1. What is the perception of Senior High School English teachers on the implementation of Curriculum 2013? 2. What is the perception of Senior High School English teachers on the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013?

C. Problems Limitation This research is limited to the perception of the Senior High School English teachers in implementing the Curriculum 2013. The perception includes the implementation of the Curriculum 2013 in general. Related to the second research problem, the researcher decides to limit the perception on the implementation of the fields of assessment in the Curriculum 2013, and some problems which occurred during the implementation of Curriculum 2013. Related to the description of data analysis, the researcher will only generalize the participants’ perception without generalizing the variation of opinions from the participants. Although the participants may have different opinions on the implementation, there are two possibilities for the results, whether the participants’ perception is negative or positive. Thus, from the varieties of responses, the researcher can analyze the participants’ perception, either it is positive or negative.


7 D. Research Objectives The research objectives of this research are: 1.

To find out the Senior High School English teachers’ perception on the implementation of Curriculum 2013.

2.

To find out the Senior High School English teachers’ perception on the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013.

E. Research Benefits The researcher expects that this research will be beneficial to the ELESP students, the researcher, and the government. The researcher hopes that this research can give an understanding to the readers, especially ELESP students as teachers candidates, the researcher, and the government, about the importance of learning from the participants’ experience in implementing Curriculum 2013. Thus, in the future, the curriculum implementation will be improved. The expected contributions are presented as follows.

1. The English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) Students The researcher expects that the results of this research can give some benefits for the ELESP students. Since the topic of this research is new, this research can bring the reality which happens in the implementation of the Curriculum 2013. The researcher also expects that this research can have an improvement from the other ELESP students.


8 2. The Researcher The researcher will also receive some advantages by conducting this research. When the researcher succeeds in answering the research problems, the researcher can see the reality of the Curriculum 2013 implementation, the strength and weakness of Curriculum 2013, differences between the School-based Curriculum and Curriculum 2013, and the teachers’ preparation to implement Curriculum 2013. Later, the result can give some suggestions to the teacher candidates to be more prepared in implementing Curriculum 2013.

3. The Government The researcher hopes that this research can be a critic for the implementation of the Curriculum 2013. Hence, the government can improve the implementation of Curriculum 2013. Besides, the researcher hopes that the government will maintain the strengths of Curriculum 2013.

F. Definition of terms The researcher provides the definition of terms as follows: 1. Perception According to Huffman and Vernoy (1997), perception is the process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting sensory data into useable mental representation of the world. On the other hand, according to Worchel and Shebilske (1998), perception is the process of interpreting something. From the definition above, perception is an action of interpreting something, which is


9 happened in the psychological mindset in the form of response or opinion. In this research, perception means the opinion of the Senior High School English teachers on the implementation of Curriculum 2013, including the implementation of assessment requirements. The teachers will also give their suggestion about the implementation of the Curriculum 2013 as well.

2. Implementation Rouse (2007) states that implementation is the carrying out, execution or practice of a plan, a method, or any design for doing something. Implementation is the action that must follow any preliminary thinking in order for something to actually happen. As such, implementation is the action that must follow any preliminary thinking order for something which actually happen. In this research, implementation is a set of activities to plan and execute the Curriculum 2013 into the learning and teaching activity in the school.

3. Assessment Purwanto (2009) claims that assessment is “the decision making based on the criteria provided” (p. 4). Beside, Priestley (1982) defined that assessment program is a unified approach to assessment for a specific purpose. Therefore, assessment program includes a number of requirements. All of the requirements are designed to assess the students from various aspects. In this research, the researcher uses the term of assessment for the assessment forms which are included in Curriculum 2013. Based on the


10 assessment criteria, there are three kinds of assessment in Curriculum 2013, namely cognitive, affective, and psychomotor assessment. Thus, the analysis of assessment in this research includes the teachers’ perception on the implementation of assessment forms in Curriculum 2013.

4. Curriculum 2013 Arifin (2011) states that curriculum is the entire school programs and all of the people which are involved in it. Meanwhile, Kelly (2004) states that curriculum is used for many different kinds of teaching programs and instructions. Based on those definitions, curriculum means a set of teaching program and instruction which is designed to develop the educational system in a country. Besides, a curriculum is being practiced by the entire school programs and all of the parties which are involved in it. Related to this research, Curriculum 2013 is a set of teaching program and instruction, which is designed by the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2013, to develop the educational system, and implemented by the all of the national school in Indonesia.


CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the theoretical description and the theoretical framework. The theoretical description presents the theories related to this research. Meanwhile, the theoretical framework presents some relevant theories which help the researcher to answer the research questions.

A. Theoretical Description Beside a brief explanation about curriculum in general and curriculum in Indonesia, this section reviews five other theories which are related to this research, namely perception theory, self-agency theory, teacher professionalism, pedagogical content knowledge, and adult learning theory.

1. Curriculum Definition Etymologically, the word curriculum comes from Greek “curir”, which means “the runner”. Meanwhile, “curere” means “the running field”. On the other language, French, as an example, curriculum comes from the word “courier” which means “to run”. Thus, curriculum is a distance which is taken by the runner from the starting line until the finish line to achieve the medals in order to be a winner.

11


12 Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2014) states that curriculum is one of the elements which has a contribution in increasing the quality of the students’ progress. On other hand, the society also understands the curriculum as a set of planned subjects which are taught in school as learning guidelines to achieve the learning objectives. The idea of a curriculum has been differentiated across a wide range of meanings. Squires (1990) reveals that one basic view is that curriculum is “what is taught.” Levine (1981) states that narrow view holds that curriculum is the body of courses which presents the knowledge, principles, values, and skills that are the intended consequences of formal education. Meanwhile, Taylor (1950) concludes that the broad view holds that the curriculum will have to be conceived as the name for the total active life of each person in college. Thus, the schools which accept curriculum as a subject being taught face simpler task than those who accept curriculum as the learners’ experiences, both inside and outside of the school. When the curriculum is only limited as subject taught, the only obligation that the teachers have is to deliver the material. The teachers do not have to think about the students’ understanding or check whether there is any constrains which the students or not. However, Arifin (2011) states that curriculum is the entire school programs and all of the people which are involved in it. Therefore, the curriculum holds the entire courses which are taken by the students during a certain period of time, namely Primary School (six years), Junior High School (three years), and Senior High School (three years). As a consequence of this belief, curriculum has


13 four conventional understandings, they are curriculum includes a certain amount of courses, the students are assisted to learn and master all of the courses, the students only learn those courses in the school and the courses are delivered separately, and the final purpose of a curriculum is to get a legal certificate to apply a job after finishing the school.

2. Curriculum in Indonesia The educational system in Indonesia is under the responsibility of the

Ministry of Education and Culture (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan or Mendikbud). Besides having the obligation to do the “nine years compulsory education” (wajib belajar sembilan tahun), Indonesia has experienced nine times of curriculum development. Mulyasa (2005) states that the objective of the educational system in Indonesia is to make the learners interact with their environment. Thus, the main purpose of the educational system in Indonesia is to produce a qualified human resource. In order to produce a qualified human resource that is compatible with the globalization era, the government keeps on developing the curriculum. Beside, curriculum is a guideline for the teachers to do the execution for the learning and teaching activity in the classroom.

a. School-Based Curriculum (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan 2006) Before the government announced the Curriculum 2013, Indonesia used the SBC (KTSP 2006) which also used school-based management. KTSP stands for Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. According to Vernez, Karam, and


14 Marshall (2012), school-based management had been implemented since 2003 in Indonesia. Therefore, the school had the autonomy to manage their operations independently. The teachers also had the independency to make the syllabus, because it was designed based on the students’ need. However, the government saw that this curriculum needed to be improved based on the competency to face the globalization era without leaving the values as Indonesian. Besides, the student was more concerned to be a religious and educated people.

b. Curriculum 2013 (Kurikulum 2013) The explanation of the Curriculum 2013 will be divided into three parts, namely the objectives, scientific approach, and the fields of assessment. 1) The Objectives of Curriculum 2013 As stated in the Chapter I, the curriculum will always be developed based on the demands of the time. Thus, after Curriculum 1994, there were a lot of ideas of developing the curriculum, such as Kurikulum Berbasis Kompetensi (Competence-Based Standard), Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (SchoolBased Curriculum), Curriculum 2013, and many more. Curriculum 2013 included the revision of SBC. Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2014) states that Curriculum 2013 was developed based on the competences which were needed as the instrument to lead the students to be a better person, based on some criteria. First, a qualified person who is able to take the demands of the time. Second, an


15 educated person who is also faithful to God, noble-hearted, knowledgeable, skilled, creative and independent. Third, a democratic and responsible person.

2) Scientific Approach in Curriculum 2013 In the end of the nineteenth century, the scientific approach was implemented into the science of education in America for the first time. The purpose of the implementation was to emphasize the formalistic laboratory method which led the world into scientific facts (Rudolph, 2005). This method is designed to help the teachers in developing the curriculum in order to improve the learning process which is done by dividing the process into some subsequences. Through scientific approach, Curriculum 2013 tried to apply the observing, questioning, associating, experimenting and creating/networking as the primary teaching and learning activity. With the scientific method, the students were expected to have the passion to dig out the objective truth. Thus, the students will not believe irrational things, becomes curious and not creating prejudice easily, and always be optimistic (Kementrian Pendidikan dan Budaya, 2014: 141). Scientific approach is a mean or mechanism to construct the knowledge based on a scientific method. The learning process must be protected from the nonscientific values. Therefore, the process which includes in non-scientific approach is based on intuition, common sense, prejudice, discovery through trial and error, and the origin of critical thinking (Mendikbud, 2014: 142).

3) The Fields of Assessment in Curriculum 2013 In Indonesia, there are 8 (eight) national standards of education, as stated in the article 35 paragraph (1) Undang-Undang No. 20 Tahun 2003. One of them is Standar Kompetensi Lulusan (Competency Standard of Graduates). According to Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2014), “The Competency Standard


16 of Graduates includes the development of attitude, knowledge and skill as parts of the goals of the educational system in Indonesia” (p. 15). Those three competences have different psychological process. Affective competence is obtained through accepting, doing, appreciating, living and practicing. Cognitive competence is obtained through remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. Psychomotor competence is obtained through observing, questioning, experimenting, comprehending, presenting and creating. Thus, in this research, affective requirements are related to assessment that the teachers should undergo to assess students’ cognitive, psychomotor, and affective competence.

3. Perception Theory This part provides theories of perception. a. The Nature of Perception There are many theories from the experts about the theory of perception. According to Huffman and Vernoy (2000), perception is the process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting sensory data into useable mental representation of the world. On the other hand, according to Worchel and Shebilske (1989), perception is the process of interpreting information. Besides, Szilagyi and Wallace (1980) define perception as a process by which individuals attend to incoming stimuli, organize, and interpret such stimuli into message that in turn indicate an appropriate action or behavior. Thus, perception is an action in which someone gives the stimulus and response about something which happens in the reality.


17 Although some people are facing a similar object, they may have a different perception about it. It is because everyone has their own experience in the past. There are many experts that describe the relation between the people’s experience and perception. Mouly (1973) states that two persons looking at the same phenomenon may see very different things. Wick and Pick (1978) also state that there is a connection between perception and experience. Those theories are also supported by Paradewari (2015). In this research, perception means the variation of opinions from the teachers on the impelementation of the Curriculum 2013. In order to give a positive and negative perception, there are six factors which influence someone’s perception.

b. Factors Influencing Perception According to Gibson, Ivanovich, and Donelly (1985), there are six factors which influence someone in drawing a perception, namely stereotype, selectivity, self-concept, situation, needs, and emotion. 1) Stereotype Gibson et al. (1985) states that stereotype is someone’s view in a particular member in a group but generalizes all of the members in that group. In other words, stereotype is a few people’s judgment on an issue which represents the whole group’s judgment. If the teachers consider that the Curriculum 2013 has a good implementation and they do not find any difficulty in understanding the implementation of Curriculum 2013, they will perceive the implementation of Curriculum 2013 positively. Meanwhile, if the teachers consider that the


18 Curriculum 2013 has a good implementation of assessment, they will not make the administrative requirement as a burden. Eventually, the teachers will perceive the implementation of Curriculum 2013 positively. 2) Selectivity People may select something which they like or not. Therefore, the perception is based on the people who like or dislike the implementation of Curriculum 2013 and the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013. Gibson, Ivanovich, and Donelly (1985) explain that the people tend to ignore the information or cues that might make them feel discomfort. People have various interests, so that they may select what is important to fulfill their needs. 3) Self-concept The way how an individual sees and feels about themselves is called selfconcept. Self-concept also comes from someone’s experience previously (in the past). Gibson et al. (1985) state that people usually themselves as a measurement or benchmark in perceiving others. They will perceive other’s behaviors and differences based on the self-concept. 4) Situation Situation affects someone’s perception, since it influences their feeling and habit in their daily life. The situation which people face also influences perceptual accuracy. Related to this research, if the teachers feel that they work in a rush because of having a lot of demands from the government, then, they will perceive a negative perception on the implementation of Curriculum 2013. 5) Need


19 Perceptions are significantly influenced by needs and desires (Gibson et al., 1985). Someone’s needs of something influence his/her perception. A willingness to know something’s good demands them to have good perception on it. In order to implement Curriculum 2013, including assessment requirements, the primary needs that the teachers want is the availability of textbooks and government’s training. If those needs are already fulfilled, the teachers will perceive a positive perception on the implementation of Curriculum 2013, including the assessment requirements. 6) Emotion Gibson, Ivanovich, and Donelly (1985) state that strong emotions often warp perceptions. Someone’s emotion also affects his/her perception. For instance, if someone is happy, she can have a good perception on something. However, it is different from those who are angry. They cannot have a good perception on something. Therefore, people’s emotion determines their perception on something. The theories above are used to analyze the Senior High School English teachers’ perception on the implementation of Curriculum 2013, including assessment requirements. Besides, the researcher also used some theories to analyze the way teachers implemented the Curriculum 2013, including assessment requirements, by using the theory of self-agency, teacher professionalism, pedagogical content knowledge, and adult learning theory. The researcher wanted to see if there is any relation between the ways of implementing Curriculum 2013 with their perception on it. Besides, by analyzing the way teachers implemented


20 Curriculum 2013, the researcher wanted to find out some strategies to prevent the teachers from being trapped by the problems which occurred in implementing Curriculum 2013.

4. Self-agency Theory In the teaching and learning activity, the students are not the only learners in the classroom. The teachers are supposed to keep learning. On the other hand, there are a lot of policies that the teachers have, either from the government or from school. Curriculum 2013 makes the teachers think creatively in gathering new ideas for the teaching and learning activity in the classroom. However, this curriculum also makes the teachers confuse and trap in the administrative requirements, rather than providing a meaningful instruction to students. Jarvis (2006) reveals that “Education should both seek to use the learners’ expertise and build on their knowledge which can be done through a variety of teaching techniques...” (p. 241). In addition, when the teachers encourage the students, they should also encourage student’s autonomy. In order to be an autonomous learner, the learner needs to be able to understand the curriculum that the teachers are teaching them. They need to be responsible for their own learning and for the learning with whom they interact (Farrel and Jacobs, 2010). Zou (2011) also claims that: Although students will not reach the same level of autonomy, helping them to raise awareness, to reflect on their own learning experiences, to share such reflections with others and to gain understanding of the factors influencing the learning processes are important for the development of


21 autonomous learning competence and positive attitudes towards learner autonomy (p. 422) Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2014) states that Curriculum 2013 builds the competence of spiritual attitude, competence of behavior, competence of knowledge and competence of skill. In order to build these competences, the students need to be guided by a scaffolding process. “This involves providing support for learners, as they go about constructing their own knowledge” (Farrel & Jacobs, 2010, p. 67). Concerning to the meaningful instruction towards students, the teachers need to understand the entire environment where they teach and to realize that they teach the students for a better life. The teachers need to realize that they are the agents of education. According to Seven Pillar Institute (2014), agency theory is in regards to “one party determines the work while another party does the work” (p. 1). Briefly, the teachers are the people who are facing the curriculum, but they are also expected to give the effort to the implementation of the curriculum. They are working in accordance with the students’ need at that time without ignoring the curriculum itself because it influences the development of the nation. Without realizing this agency theory, the goals of Curriculum 2013 are going to be hard to reach.

5. Teacher Professionalism

Professionalism is also needed to appear in the process of the learning and teaching activity. In Indonesia, the teacher’s competency consists of four


22 competences, namely pedagogical competence, personal competence, professional competence, and social competence. Yang dimaksud dengan kompetensi pedagogik adalah kemampuan mengelola pembelajaran peserta didik, yang dimaksud dengan kompetensi kepribadian adalah kemampuan kepribadian yang mantap, berakhlak mulia, arif, dan berwibawa serta menjadi teladan peserta didik, yang dimaksud dengan kompetensi profesional adalah kemampuan penguasaan materi pelajaran secara luas dan mendalam, yang dimaksud dengan kompetensi sosial adalah kemampuan guru untuk berkomunikasi dan berinteraksi secara efektif dan efisien dengan peserta didik, sesama guru, orangtua/wali peserta didik, dan masyarakat sekitar (Undang-Undang No. 14 Tahun 2005 Pasal 10 ayat 1).

Kelly, Shulman, Wilson and Tamir in Budiraharjo (2013) stated that “literature on the provision of professional teacher development program represents the complexity of education as a highly contested field in terms of morality, ideology, and instrumentality” (p. 6). Substantive understanding about the bigger contexts of education is certainly of paramount importance. Substantive understanding includes the understanding of factual knowledge, concepts, laws and theories. As a social field, education is filled with a set of values, norms, rules, and regulation upon which the field members establish communications, relations, and share power. Multiple truths emerge from different standpoints, various theoretical frameworks, and ideologies among the field members. It is important that the teachers have a professional competence. Beside, the teachers are required to be knowledgeable to different perspectives in order to attend their own theoretical frameworks and ideologies and keep being critical on their own biases. Without substantial understanding, the purpose of education will only lead to faddism.


23 6. Pedagogical Content Knowledge According to Shulman (1987) “pedagogical content knowledge is the category which is most likely to distinguish the understanding of the content specialist from that of the pedagogue” (p. 6). It represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and ability of learners, and presented for the instruction. Curriculum 2013 expected the teachers to involve the learners building a critical thinking concept. Thus, the function of the teachers is no longer as the learning source. In order to engage the learners in critical thinking methods, the teachers should have the ability to scaffold the materials based on the students’ mastering level to make the learners find the answer or solutions of the problems in the classroom easily.

7. Adult Learning Theory Transformative learning theory as an adult learning theory was firstly developed by Mezirow (1978) and later developed by Mezirow and his associates in 1991 and 2000. As Mezirow (2006) noted, with more than 150 dissertations using this theory as a theoretical framework, this theory has become the most extensively used among any other adult learning theories, exceeded andragogy and self-directed learning (Merriam, 2001), and produced a variety of alternative conceptions beyond Mezirow’s original conception, including “spirituality, positionality, emancipatory learning, and neurobiology” (Taylor, 2008, p. 7).


24 Mezirow (2002) states that “...adult learning emphasize contextual understanding, critical reflection on assumptions, and validating meaning by assessing reasons” (p. 3). These principles, then turn out into their beliefs. In addition to doing these principles, Mezirow (2000) also concludes that “...the more reflective and open we are to the perspectives of others, the richer our imagination of alternative contexts of understanding will be” (p. 20). Thus, if the teachers are open to others’ suggestion and feedback, they will improve the teaching performance. Besides improving the teaching performance, the teachers will also enrich their understanding upon many issues related to the development of education.

B. Theoretical Framework This framework focuses on the Senior High School English teachers’ perception on the implementation of Curriculum 2013 in general. Besides, this framework is also focused on the Senior High School English teachers’ perception on the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013. Thus, the theories above are the background in explaining the results later. In order to answer the first research problem, the researcher uses perception theory and curriculum definition. After displaying the data into paragraphs, the researcher analyzes the teacher’s opinion on the implementation of Curriculum 2013. The analysis of the participants’ opinion will be a mean to figure out their perception on the implementation of Curriculum 2013. Then, the researcher uses perception theory to strengthen the researcher’s analysis.


25 Meanwhile, in order to answer the second research problem, the researcher uses perception theory and fields of assessment in Curriculum 2013. After the participants give their opinions on the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013, the researcher analyzes the teachers’ perception on the implementation of assessment in Curriculum 2013. Then, the analysis of the participants’ perception on the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013 is strengthened by the perception theory. Besides, the other theories are used to see the teachers’ way of implementing Curriculum 2013, and also related to the implementation of assessment. Self-agency is used to see the teachers’ ability to make a good implementation of Curriculum 2013, despite having some challenges in the learning and teaching process, especially in dealing with administrative requirements. Teacher professionalism is used to see the teachers’ mastery level in mastering the materials which are given in Curriculum 2013. Pedagogical content knowledge is used to analyze the depth of the teachers’ mastery level in understanding Curriculum 2013. In order to figure out the teachers’ pedagogical competence, the researcher analyzes the way the teacher conducts the classroom by implementing the scientific approach. Meanwhile, adult learning theory is used to analyze the participants’ willingness to open for the others’ perspectives in improving their knowledge in understanding Curriculum 2013 and their teaching performance.


CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides the explanation of (A) Research Method, (B) Research Participants, (C) Research Setting, (D) Instrument and Data Gathering Techniques, (E) Data Analysis Techniques and (F) Research Procedures.

A. Research Method This research used the qualitative approach. Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, and Razavieh (2002) state that qualitative inquires seek to interpret human actions, institutions, events, customs, and the like, and in so doing construct a “reading”, or portrayal, of what is being studied (p. 423). One of the functions of qualitative inquiry is used to figure out perception. In order to gather the data, the researcher interviewed four Senior High School English teachers to get their perception on the Curriculum 2013 implementation and assessment. This research is descriptive qualitative research, since the researcher provides the result and findings in a descriptive form. Sugiyono in Ufie (2013) states that, “Penelitian deskriptif kualitatif adalah metode penelitian yang berlandaskan pada filsafat postpositivisme yang biasanya digunakan untuk meneliti pada kondisi objektif yang alamiah di mana peneliti berperan sebagai instrumen kunci.” Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw in Sandelowski (2000) argue that descriptions always depend on the perceptions, inclinations, sensitivities, and 26


27 sensibilities of the describer. The researcher seeks to describe an experience or selected event in what they will describe, and in the process of featuring certain aspects of it, begin to transform that experience or event. It is obvious from the statement that phenomena is central to qualitative research, in which the scientific approach and method are conducted to prove the preliminary assumptions towards the phenomena. In order to make the assumptions and interpretation becomes reliable and scientifically approved, qualitative researchers need to refer to prior works and theories. One of the benefits of conducting a qualitative research, according to Yin (2009), is that it gives to the researchers a more comprehensive understanding toward complex social phenomena without tendency of impoverish the rich information or data into numbers.

B. Research Participants This research was conducted by interviewing four Senior High School English teachers who are teaching in different private schools. Currently the participants were teaching in three different cities. Two of them were teaching in Yogyakarta, while the others were teaching in South Tangerang and North Jakarta. Meanwhile, the participants were selected purposively. According to Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2010), in purposive sampling, sample elements judged to be typical, or representative, are chosen from the population. In purposive


28 sampling, the researcher chose the participants based on certain criteria. In this research, the researcher made three criteria as follows: 1. The participants are Senior High School teachers. 2. The participants are teaching English 3. The participant had implemented or is implementing the Curriculum 2013. In this research, two participants are teaching in Yogyakarta. One of the teachers is teaching in South Tangerang. Meanwhile, the other one is teaching in North Jakarta. It was expected that the researcher would understand and comprehend the perception of the Senior High School English teachers from various cities on the implementation of Curriculum 2013 in four different schools.

C. Research Setting The interview was conducted in February 13th, 2015 to July 17th, 2015. There are four participants in this research. As stated previously, they are teaching in four different schools. Although they are from three different cities, the interview was conducted in Jogjakarta. When the researcher wanted to make an appointment to interview those participants, the researcher texted the participants. After receiving their reply, the researcher went to their house in Jogjakarta, and conducted the interview there.


29 D. Research Bias On the other hand, the results of this research may have a research bias because the participants came from different cities and schools. These different backgrounds may influence their opinions about the curriculum implementation. However, Curriculum 2013 was implemented by all of the national schools in all educational level. As long as the researcher did not generalize the opinions to the curriculum implementation, the researcher could avoid from the bias.

E. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique The researcher gathered the data by interviewing some Senior High School English teachers from different schools, who had already implemented, or is still implementing Curriculum 2013. The purpose of the interview is to know the teachers’ perception on the implementation of the Curriculum 2013. According to Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2010), in qualitative studies, the human investigator is the primary instrument for the gathering and analyzing data. In order to conduct the research instrument, the researcher used human as research instrument as the main instrument. The concept of human as the research instrument is to emphasize the unique role that qualitative researchers play in their inquiry. Because qualitative research studies human experiences and situations, the researcher needed a flexible instrument to capture the complexity of the human experience, an instrument capable of adapting and responding to the environment. It is believed that only a human instrument is capable of this task.


30 By using human as the main instrument, the researcher has the flexibility to figure out human perception. The data gathering or data collection was an open-ended interview. Ary, Jacobs and Sorensen (2010) state that interview is one of the most widely used and basic methods for obtaining qualitative data. Interview was used to gather data from people about opinions, beliefs, experiences people have and the meaning they made, rather than testing hypothesis and feelings about situations in their own words. The advantage of conducting interviews is that interviews provide data that cannot be obtained through observation. The background of the participants, or in Seidman (1991) term is called the context, is urgent in conducting interviews. The urgency of recognizing the context of interviews is that it provides access to the context of the participants’ behavior and, thus, provides a way for researchers to understand the meaning of that behavior (Seidman, 1991, pp. 3-4). Another advantage of conducting interviews is that interviews are powerful way to gain insight into educational issues through understanding the experience of the individuals whose lives constitute education (Seidman, 1991). Understanding the experiences of individuals is the strength of an interview as a method of qualitative research, mainly because those experiences are conducted through stories during the interviews. Telling stories, according to Seidman (1991) is essentially a meaning-making process in which people select details of their experiences from their stream of consciousness. Henceforth, conducting


31 interviews give the researchers a chance to get deep and refine information by which they can develop their argumentation upon rich resources. Before conducting the interview, the researcher wrote down several questions to be used in interviewing the participants. Therefore, the interview which was used by the researcher was a semi-structured interview, in which the researcher prepared some questions to be asked to the participants. Meanwhile, there would be several questions which were made spontaneously, in the middle of the interview. The researcher used semi-structured interview to gain various answer from the participants. Merriam (2009) stated that “semi-structured interview was guided by a list of questions or issues to be explored, so that this format allowed the researcher to respond to the situation at hand, to the several point of views of the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic” (p. 90). Furthermore, the use of semi structured interview was useful for obtaining information to test a specific hypothesis that the researcher had in mind (Frankel, Wallen, Hyn, 2015, p. 449).

F. Data Analysis Techniques Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2002) state that the analysis of qualitative data includes the process of organizing and summarizing, interpreting, and reporting. The first process is analyzing. The first step in analyzing the data was organizing the data. In this step, the researcher made the interview transcripts. The process of organizing the data was started by reducing the data, based on Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh’s (2000) theory, namely the coding process. The interview


32 transcripts were categorized based on the theories in the review of literature, without making additional information to represent some categories of those theories. Below is the example of the interview transcript.

Figure 3.1 Example on How the Researcher Categorized the Interview Transcript

Second, summarizing begins with making some statements about relationships and themes in the data (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh (2002). Second, the researcher interpreted the data. According to Ary et al. (2002), interpreting is an inductive process where the researcher generalized the data based on the connections and common aspects among the categories and patterns. According to Ary et al. (2002), in qualitative research, there are no statistical tests of significance to facilitate interpretation of qualitative data. Besides, interpreting is a process that proceeds without set of rules, but it is supported by the data. Third, the researcher reported the results.


33 G. Research Procedure This part shows the procedure of conducting the research from the beginning until the report of the data. The procedure will explained on each point: 1. The researcher found four possible participants to be interviewed. 2. The researcher asked teachers’ permission to be the participants of this research. 3. The researcher interviewed the participants about their perception on Curriculum 2013 implementation deeply. 4. The respondents agreed with what the researcher had written. 5. After the researcher had all the data needed, the researcher started analyzing the data. 6. The researcher consulted the data with the thesis advisor.


CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the research results and the discussion based on the findings. There are two parts in this chapter. The first part is the research result. Meanwhile, the second part is the discussion. In the research result, the researcher gives a description of the participants‟ opinion about the implementation of Curriculum 2013, including the implementation of assessment requirements in Curriculum 2013. Then, in the discussion, the researcher divided the analysis into four sections. The first section is the Senior High School English teachers‟ perception on the implementation of the Curriculum 2013. The second section is the Senior High School English teachers‟ perception on the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013. The third section is some additional factors which influenced the Senior High School English teachers in implementing Curriculum 2013. The fourth section is some strategies to prevent the Senior High School English teachers from being trapped by the problems which occurred in implementing Curriculum 2013 The data of this research is based on the interview of four English teachers from different Senior High Schools. Currently, the first and second participants are teaching in Yogyakarta. The third participant is teaching in South Tangerang. The fourth participant is teaching in North Jakarta.

34


35 A. Research Results This part consists of the results from the interview between the researcher and the participants. In this part, the researcher did not provide the analysis of the participants‟ perception. Thus, this part only consists of a description of the participants‟ perception based on the interview verbatim and horizonalization. There are two sections in this part. The first section describes the Senior High School English teachers‟ perception on the implementation of Curriculum 2013. Meanwhile, the second section describes the Senior High School English teachers‟ perception on the impleemntation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013.

1. Senior High School English Teachers’ Perception on the Implementation of Curriculum 2013 The first participant of this research was AR. AR stated that Curriculum 2013 as a curriculum which was strongly emphasized on the affective side of the students. He also stated that the assessments forms in this curriculum were dominated by the affective assessment. Curriculum 2013 was trying to change the learning paradigm. The students were required to be active, because the focus of teaching and learning activity was student-centered. In my opinion, Curriculum 2013 wanted to emphasize the affective aspect of the students. Meanwhile, the previous curriculum only focused on developing students‟ cognitive and psychomotor aspect. However, in Curriculum 2013, the government seemed tried to emphasize the students‟ affective skill, or in Curriculum 2013, it was called affective aspect. On the other hand, one thing which was different from the previous curriculum was that this curriculum (C13) wanted to change the learning paradigm. -#AR (...Menurut saya pribadi, Kurikulum 2013 itu, sebenarnya sisi yang mau ditekankan adalah afektik anak gimana. Kalau di kurikulum sebelumnya


36 lebih fokus ke sisi kognitif dan psikomotorik namun di K13 ini pemerintah sepertinya mencoba untuk menekankan sisi afektif atau dalam bahasa K13 nya itu aspek sikap yang lebih ditekankan. Namun, kalau satu hal lagi yang berbeda itu adalah K13 itu lebih ke merubah paradigma atau cara belajarnya...) According to AR, scientific approach was not applicable to language learning, including English. On the other hand, AR stated that Curriculum 2013 had a good purpose. However, the implementation of this curriculum seemed to be in a rush. The government had not provided any sufficient textbook which was consisted of the materials for the students. The teacher had to find the materials by themselves. Besides, the teachers did not have the same understanding about the scientific approach. Moreover, the national examination system was not ready yet. It affected AR‟s readiness to implement this curriculum. Because of those reasons, AR admitted that he was not ready to implement this curriculum. In Curriculum 2013, the most contradicting thing was the learning method. The learning method (scientific approach) was not applicable for Language learning. Actually, the goal of Curriculum 2013 was good. However, there were many things which were missing in the preparation, in my opinion. The time allocation for the preparation was too short and the implementation was too sudden, in my opinion. Meanwhile, the textbook was not ready to be distributed. The concept of this curriculum was not ready. Moreover, the National Examination system was also not ready, but the government had already assigned the school to implement this curriculum.-#AR (...kalau kurikulum 2013, satu hal yang sangat bertentangan adalah metode pembelajaran yang tidak cocok untuk diaplikasikan di pembelajaran bahasa. Memang sebenarnya baik, kurikulum 2013 tuh baik, namun kurang persiapan kalau menurut saya. Persiapanya kurang lama dan terkesan lebih mendadak pelaksanaanya untuk dilaksanakan untuk dijalankan apalagi dengan buku-buku yang belum siap lalu pemikiran yang belum siap lalu sampai ke ujian nasionalnya belum siap tapi sudah dilaksanakan...) In Curriculum 2013, every teacher required to use the scientific approach which is consisted of observing, questioning, experimenting, associating, and


37 networking. Meanwhile, AR wanted a freedom in using the teaching methods in the classroom. The reason behind this disagreement was because AR had not understood the application of scientific approach in Curriculum 2013. In order to overcome the lack of understanding, AR often shared the problems with the other teachers. In Curriculum 2013, the students had to be autonomous. In this case, AR had some tricks to improve the student's autonomy. one of the examples was by giving a group project. AR stated that through this project, the passive students could be more motivated. After implementing Curriculum 2013, AR preferred the KTSP 2006 to Curriculum 2013. Next, the second participant was YA. Although Curriculum 2013 had a good purpose for the future education, YA perceived that Curriculum 2013 was very burdensome for the teachers with many assessment forms. The implementation of the assessment was too complicated, based on YA‟s perception. In contrast to AR, YA perceived that Curriculum 2013 was applicable to English learning. However, in terms of material, there was no significant difference between Curriculum 2013 with the previous curriculum. In my opinion, the implementation of Curriculum 13 was too complicated. So, the teachers were being lack of time in designing a challenging material for the students. However, there was no problem found in the materials itself. The materials were similar to the previous curriculum. The problem was that the assessment format was too complicated. The scientific approach was applicable for English learning, but it was too complicated, especially when it dealt with the assessment requirements.-#YA (...kalo menurut saya Kurikulum 13 itu rumit sekali. Jadi, guru kurang banyak waktu untuk mencari materi supaya lebih challenging ke anaknya itu. Kalau masalah materinya sih ngga terlalu masalah, sama sih materinya. Cuma di penilaiannya itu terlalu rumit sekali. Kalo 5M


38 sebetulnya bukan cocok tidaknya, tapi lebih rumit, banyak tuntutannya terutama di penilaiannya...) From all of the assessment forms in Curriculum 2013, filling the assessment forms was the most burdensome thing for YA. Considering that Curriculum 2013 had many assessment formats to be done, YA still preferred the 2006 Curriculum (KTSP) to Curriculum 2013. Although in Curriculum 2013 learning grammar was not the main focus in the material, YA still took some time to teach grammar to the students. YA assumed that English teaching would not be complete if the students did not understand grammar. Besides, in terms of readiness, YA was not ready to implement this curriculum. The effort that she gave to prepare herself in implementing this curriculum was because of the obligation from the government. Meanwhile, the third participant of this research was DI. DI stated that Curriculum 2013 was able to facilitate the children in building their characteristics. DI believed that everyone had different talents and potential. Each student was born with a different intelligence. Therefore, the materials which were given to the students should be adjusted to the students‟ potential. In other words, a good curriculum was expected to help the students in digging out their potential. Similar to the previous participants, DI perceived that Curriculum 2013 was a good curriculum. However, the weakness of the implementation was in terms of preparation. The preparation to implement this curriculum seemed to be in a rush. It was seen from the unavailability of textbooks for students. DI and the other teachers at his school had to find additional books and materials by


39 themselves. DI also agreed with the format of the assessments in Curriculum 2013. Actually, Curriculum 2013 had a good purpose. This curriculum wanted to emphasize on character building. However, the preparation was poor. There was no textbook in one semester, although the curriculum had already been implemented. So, the teachers were looking for the sources by themselves.-#DI (...kalo kurikulum 2013 sebenarnya ada penambahan karakter ya, itu bagus sih sebenarnya terus-terang, cuma masih dalam tahap persiapan, persiapannya belum mantep jadi kemungkinan perangkatnya belum siap buku. Satu semester udah mulai tapi ngga ada bukunya jadi masih caricari...) Moreover DI stated that the instructor from the government seemed did not master the Curriculum 2013. Before implementing Curriculum 2013, DI was trained by different instructors from MGMP (Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran). Unfortunately, the explanations of the lesson plan which were provided by each instructor were different. Besides, because DI only had a limited time to adjust with this curriculum, DI stated that he was not ready to implement this curriculum. If the government had already provided complete tools to implement this curriculum, namely textbook from government and publisher, the teacher would execute the curriculum well (however, what was happened in the reality was not as well as DI‟s expectation). Actually, the administrative requirements were part of our obligations. If the curriculum always changed frequently, it became very burdensome.-#DI (...kalo menjalankan sih siap saja asal ada perangkat, dalam artian, buku dari pemerintah ada, buku dari penerbit ada, ya kita tinggal jalankan Sebenernya gini, kalau untuk administrasi ya, itu... sebenernya kan wajib, kalau kurikulumnya ganti-ganti terus itu malah jadi terbebani karena ya kita kan harus menyesuaikan...) The fourth participant was AN. Based on AN‟s opinion, Curriculum 2013 was not only aimed to make the students develop their cognitive and psychomotor skill, but also affective skill. According to AN, Curriculum 2013 had


40 some strengths and weaknesses. The strength of Curriculum 2013 was that the students were trained to be able to construct the knowledge independently. Students‟ independency was reflected from the stages in the scientific approach. According to AN, every stage in the scientific approach summed up the elements of discovery learning, in which the students took place as the main actor in the learning process. However, AN also stated that Curriculum 2013 had some weaknesses. During the implementation of scientific approach, there was a sense of inner fears from AN about the findings which the students obtained at the end of their learning process. Sometimes, AN worried if the students were too often required to find their own knowledge (discovery learning), the students would have a different understanding about the material. Therefore, in order to solve it, AN always guided the students and gave a conclusion at the end of the lesson. Thus, the students would have the same understanding. The weakness of Curriculum 2013 was that if the students were given the freedom to find the solution by themselves continuously, the learning process seemed to be incomplete (because the students would have different understanding). Actually, it was good to let the students discuss with their friends. So, at first, I let the students to have the discovery learning. Then, I tried to complete their findings in the conclusion.-#AN (...kekuranganya itu kalo kita terus-terusan begitu anak ga mantep juga belajarnya kok nemuin sendiri kesimpulannya aku mantepin di kesimpulannya. Memang bagusnya anak nemuin sendiri dulu, mereka diskusi dulu, nemuin dulu, nanti di kesimpulannya dimantepin...) Technically, based on AN‟s opinion, the implementation of Curriculum 2013 seemed to be in a rush. As a teacher who was assigned to teach in a pilot project school, AN was surprised when she had to implement Curriculum 2013 for the first time. At that time, the government assigned the school where AN


41 taught as one of the schools which have the obligation to implement Curriculum 2013, started from July, 2013. In the same month, AN was trained by the instructor from MGMP. Shortly afterwards, when the school year began, the teachers and students must be ready to implement Curriculum 2013. Because of the limitation of the time, the school foundation divided the portion for training based on the location of the school. Unfortunately, the quota for English teacher‟s training was not given to the school where AN taught. Therefore, AN only attended the introduction about Curriculum 2013 from MGMP and from the instructor who was invited by the school.

2. Senior High School English Teachers’ Perception on the Assessment in Curriculum 2013 According to AR, Curriculum 2013 required the students to use logic to solve a problem. Therefore, AR always tried to avoid multiple choice questions. Although correcting essay questions took a long time, AR preferred essay question to multiple choices. AR found that multiple choice questions could not check the students‟ understanding thoroughly. In the affective assessment, the teachers had to assess the students individually. In other words, the teacher had to know the students, one by one. In English, the teacher only got one meeting per week with the students. AR stated that there was not any problem in memorizing the students. All of the assessment formats which were required in Curriculum 2013 had already been applied by AR. When the school implemented Curriculum 2013, AR only handled one class.


42 Thus, dealing with the assessment formats was less burdensome for AR. On the other hand, the other English teacher in that school, who taught English for the rest of the classes, felt that the assessment formats were very burdensome. The most fundamental thing which had many complaints from the teachers was affective assessment, in which the teacher had to know their students individually. Personally, I did not have any difficulty in dealing with affective assessment, but it was not because I understand the system. It was because I only taught one class, last year (when the C 13 was implemented in his school). However, the other English teacher, who taught in more than one class, found the difficulties when she dealt with affective assessment because she had to memorize hundreds of students in a short period of time. The time allocation was too short. The teacher spent too much time to observe the students, rather than focusing on the materials.-#AR (...untuk aspek penilaian terutama aspek sikap yang banyak complaint kaya sikap di mana guru harus tau persis satu per satu siswinya. Kalau saya pribadi ngga mengalami kesulitan, tapi bukan karena saya paham tapi karena saya hanya mengajar satu kelas tahun lalu. Tapi dari temanteman lain yang mengajar lebih dari satu kelas seperti guru bahasa inggris satunya lagi, mulai merasakan kesulitan ketika masuk ke penilaian sikap. Karena harus menghafal sekian ratus anak dalam waktu yang singkat. Waktu untuk pembelajaran malah sering terlupakan materi terlupakan tapi lebih habis untuk melihat atau mengobservasi anak...) In terms of cognitive and psychomotor skills, AR was often confused to categorize the material based on cognitive and psychomotor skill. Language skills, including English, were divided into four, namely reading, listening, speaking, and listening skill. During the implementation of the Curriculum 2013, AR always found a problem in distinguishing between the psychomotor and cognitive skills, as both had many similarities. AR perceived that the elaboration of Core Competence (Kompetensi Inti) and Basic Competence (Kompetensi Dasar) in Curriculum 2013 was unclear. In SBC (KTSP 2006), there was a clear explanation about the four language skills, including English, namely Reading, Listening, Speaking, and Writing. The categorization of the skills in cognitive or psychomotor


43 domain was clearer in SBC (KTSP 2006). However, in Curriculum 2013, everything became ambiguous.-#AR (..namun yang membedakan untuk Bahasa Inggris kita juga pernah ngalami kalau dalam K2006 itu jelas ada 4 skills kan ya ada Reading, Listening, Speaking, Writing mana yang masuk kognitif mana yang masuk psikomotorik itu jelas. Tapi kalau di kurikulum 2013 ini semuanya menjadi rancu...) In contrast to AR, from all of the administration which YA got in Curriculum 2013, filling the affective assessment forms was the most burdensome stuff that she had ever got. There were many forms that should be filled by the teachers and students. Dealing with these forms was not easy for YA. YA said that, sometimes, teachers were running out of time because of these forms, rather than focusing on making a meaningful learning for the students. The implementation was too complicated, especially the assessment requirements. The teachers were demanded by the assessment requirements. Moreover, we have to assess the students individually. Thus, teacher did not have much time to focus on the materials. Most of the time was spent to observe the students. (...rumit banyak tuntutannya terutama di penilaiannya. Terlalu dituntut penilaian, per individu lagi. Guru ngga punya banyak waktu untuk fokus ke materinya jadi lebih ke pengamatan individu siswanya...) On the other hand, DI stated that this curriculum was no longer emphasized on the theory. The material which was given by the government gave more space to the teachers to give more practices to the students. Grammar was not the main material in Curriculum 2013. The problem was that the time allocation for English was too short. DI only had two hours in a week to meet the students. However, most of the materials were making the students to have practice than theory. On the other hand, having practice in the classroom took a long time than theory. In SBC (KTSP), English teachers had 4 hours per week to meet the students, suddenly, now, we only had 2 hours per week. About the time


44 allocation, if it was compared to the amount of the materials which should be given to the students, I thought that it was not enough. On the other hand, practice needed more time (to assess the students, both in group and individually), rather than theory. (...kalo KTSP kan 4 jam, tiba-tiba sekarang 2 jam. Kemudian, masalah waktu dalam artian gini waktu yang kemarin itu yang saya lihat dibandingkan dengan materinya kurang. Padahal praktek itu memerlukan waktu yang lebih banyak daripada teori karena praktek harus individu) Generally, there was not any significant problem in implementing the assessment system for DI. There were many assessment formats in assessing the students‟ comprehension in Curriculum 2013. One of the assessment formats which did not run well when he implemented Curriculum 2013 was peer assessment. When he assigned the students to assess their friends, the result was very subjective. If Student A were closed with Student B, the score would be excellent, and vice versa. However, some of the students seemed did not take the assessment seriously. In DI‟s perception, the peer assessment was ineffective About the peer assessment, since the students were not assessing all of their classmates, so, when we asked the students to fill up the forms, “Please assess your friend over there.” they could choose by themselves. If the students were close to the friend whom they assessed, they would give a good score, and vice versa.-#AR (...kemudian juga, penilaian antar teman. Ketika kita bagikan ke beberapa anak juga “Coba kamu tes temen kamu yang di sana” karena kan kita ngga semuanya ya, boleh milih. Mereka kalau temennya akrab ya nilainya bagus, tapi kalau pas temennya ngga deket ya nilainya apa adanya...) Beside, AN stated that there were still many problems in indurstanding the affective assessment. Similar to the third respondent, AN seemed disagree with the format of affective assessment, namely peer assessment and self-assessment. During the implementation of Curriculum 2013, the implementation of peer assessment and self-assessment were done subjectively by the students.


45 So, the obstructions were, first, the affective assessment was subjective, and, second, the system to fill up the forms of assessment was still manual, because the IT teacher was still designing a web to enable the students in filling up the forms automatically. Thus, in the past two years, we still did it manually, and it was really time consuming.-#AN (...jadi kesulitannya yang pertama nilainya kurang objektif yang kedua tekhnisnya kita masih merekap karena guru IT baru meramu webnya supaya anak bisa masuk langsung mengisi gitu. Jadi 2 tahun ini kita masih manual dan itu takes time...) Besides, if the teachers wanted to calculate the final score for the affective assessment, the teachers still calculated it manually. AN perceived that this system was very time consuming. However, the school had already asked the IT teachers to design a website to find the most effective format for the affective assessment. AN stated that the students did not take this curriculum as a burden. This situation made the implementation of the assessment run well. The only thing which still needed to improve was the students‟ willingness to fill the forms objectively.

B. Discussion In this part, the researcher analyzes the participants‟ opinions which were stated in the research results above. In analyzing the participants‟ opinion, the researcher uses the factors influencing perception according to Gibson, Ivanovich, and Donelly (1985), which is stated in the review of literature. There are four sections in the discussion part. The first section is the analysis of the Senior High School English teachers‟ perception on the implementation of Curriculum 2013. Next, the second section is the analysis of Senior High School English teachers‟


46 perception on the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013. Meanwhile, in the third and fourth sections, the analysis of some factors which influence the implementation of Curriculum 2013 and some strategies to prevent from being trapped by the problems in implementing Curriculum 2013.

1. Senior High School English Teacher’s Perception on the Implementation of Curriculum 2013 Based on the results above, it could be concluded that the participants had a negative perception on the implementation of Curriculum 2013. There were six factors which influenced this negative perception. Those factors were explained as follows. a. The implementation seemed to be in a rush First, the implementation of the Curriculum 2013 seemed to be in a rush. Based on DI‟s statement, it showed that there was a lack of preparation on the implementation of Curriculum 2013. At that time, the curriculum had already started almost one semester, but there was no textbook which was available. So, I had to search for the materials by myself. The implementation was seemed to be in a rush.-#DI (...Waktu itu satu semester udah mulai tetapi ngga ada bukunya jadi masih caricari, terlalu tergesa-gesa...)

DI stated that the lack of preparation was in terms of textbook. When he implemented Curriculum 2013, the textbook was not available, neither for the teachers nor the students. Thus, DI stated that the implementation of this curriculum seemed to be in a rush. In order to implement Curriculum 2013, including the assessment requirements, one of the primary needs that the teachers wanted was the


47 textbooks. In terms of needs, the government was not ready with the textbook. DI stated that, at the beginning, the textbook was not available. Since his need of textbook was not met properly during the implementation of Curriculum 2013, it influenced DI to have a negative perception (Gibson et al., 1985). Besides, the situation when he implemented Curriculum 2013 also affected him on having a negative perception (Gibson et al., 1985). DI felt that the implementation of Curriculum 2013 seemed to be in a rush. It was seen from the unavailability of textbooks when he implemented this curriculum. This situation made the teachers become busy in searching for the materials for the students. b. The participants were not ready to implement this curriculum Second, the participants were not ready to implement this curriculum. All of the participants of this research admitted that they were not ready to implement this curriculum. The participants stated that the limitation of time affected their readiness to implement Curriculum 2013. Moreover, Gibson et al. (1985) explain that the people tend to ignore information or cues that might make them feel discomfort. The participants disliked the implementation of Curriculum 2013 because, in their opinion, they were not ready to implement Curriculum 2013. Beside, having a short period of time to have the training and absorb all of the information before implementing this curriculum made them feel discomfort. c. The implementation of Curriculum 2013 was lack of preparation Third, the implementation of Curriculum 2013 was lack of preparation. AR and DI disliked the implementation of Curriculum 2013 because, in their


48 opinion, the implementation of Curriculum 2013 was lack of preparation. Besides textbook, at that time, the government was not ready with the National Examination (Ujian Nasional) system and training. The training was not given equally to the teachers. Moreover, some instructors could not give appropiate answers when the teachers gave them some questions. It showed that they had a bad experience in terms of preparation. This bad experience turned out to be a trigger which formed their perception (Wick and Pick, 1978). On the other hand, AR and DI disliked the preparation to implement Curriculum 2013, it influenced AR and DI to have a negative perception (Gibson et al., 1985). d. The applications for Core Competences and Basic Competences in Curriculum 2013 were unclear Fourth, the applications for Core Competences and Basic Competences in Curriculum 2013 were unclear. Gibson et al. (1985) state that stereotype is a few people‟s judgment on an issue which represents the whole group‟s judgment. In terms of stereotype, from the response which AR gave, AR found a difficulty in implementing Curriculum 2013 because he found that the applications for Core Competences and Basic Competences were unclear. Besides, Worchel and Shebilske (1998), perception is the process of interpreting information. From AR‟s statement, it showed that he did not interpret the information to implement Curriculum 2013 well. Thus, it made AR have a difficulty in implemented the Core Competences and Basic Competences in Curriculum 2013. Eventually, it affected AR to have a negative perception on the implementation of the Curriculum 2013.


49 e. Curriculum 2013 was complicated Fifth, Curriculum 2013 did not provide enough time to make a more challenging material for the students. This statement was said by YA, based on her experience when she implemented Curriculum 2013. In terms of selectivity, it was clear from YA‟s statement that she disliked the implementation of Curriculum 2013. In YA‟s opinion, Curriculum 2013 was complicated. The experience of being troublesome with the implementation of Curriculum 2013 affected YA‟s negative perception on the implementation of Curriculum 2013 (Wick and Pick, 1978). Beside, Gibson, Ivanovich, and Donelly (1985) and Atman, Valenzi, and Hodgetts (1985) state that situation affects someone‟s perception, since it influences their feeling, expectation, and habit in their daily life. In terms of situation, YA stated that she did not have enough time to make a more challenging material for the students when she implemented Curriculum 2013. She spent more time to understand about curriculum implementation, since she stated that this curriculum was too complicated. Therefore, when she implemented the Curriculum 2013, she was always running out of time. This situation forced YA to work under pressure. Moreover, YA stated that she was not ready to implement Curriculum 2013. f. Curriculum 2013 made the students choose their discipline in early grade Sixth, Curriculum 2013 made the students choose their discipline in early grade. In terms of selectivity, AN stated that she disliked the way Curriculum 2013 made the students choose their discipline in early grade. In AN‟s opinion,


50 the students should be given a longer time to understand about the subjects in Senior High School, so that the students would really understand their interest. Thus, the students would not make a wrong decision. AN also stated that this system was different from KTSP 2006 (SBC). In SBC, the students had one year to understand all of the subjects in Senior High School. Later, the students could choose their disciplines in the eleventh grade. AN stated that this system was more efficient than in Curriculum 2013. Wick and Pick (1978) also state that there is a connection between perception and experience. In this case, AN compared her experience when she implemented SBC to Curriculum 2013. She stated that SBC had a better system in separating the students into some disciplines, namely Natural Science Class, Social Science Class, and Language Class. It showed that AN had a better experience when she implemented SBC. It affected AN on having a negative perception on the implementation of Curriculum 2013 (Gibson et al., 1985).

2. Senior High School English Teachers’ Perception on the Implementation of the Assessment in Curriculum 2013 Based on the results above, it could be concluded that the participants also had a negative perception on the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013. There were five factors which influenced this negative perception. Those factors were explained as follows.


51 a. The participant had a problem to differenciate between cognitive and psychomotor assessment First, the participant had a problem to differenciate between cognitive and psychomotor assessment. According to the Competency Standard of Graduates in Indonesia, the objective of a learning process includes the development of affective, cognitive, and psychomotor, which are elaborated in the school‟s educational system. Therefore, in Curriculum 2013, there were three competences which were being assessed, namely cognitive, affective, and psychomotor skill. AR stated that from those three competences, most of the time, he was confused with the cognitive and psychomotor assessment. According to Gibson et al. (1985), one of the factors which influenced someone in drawing a perception was stereotype. Gibson et al. (1985) also state that stereotype is someone‟s view in particular member in a group, but generalizes all member in that group. In the other words, stereotype is a few people‟s judgment on an issue which represents the whole group‟s judgment. AR had a negative perception on the implementation of assessment in Curriculum 2013 because he could not distinguish the psychomotor and cognitive assessment in Curriculum 2013. Moreover, AR also generalized his opinion when he had a discussion with the other teachers. Because of this generalization, AR had a negative stereotype on the implementation of assessment in Curriculum 2013.


52 b. The assessment forms were burdensome Second, the assessment forms were burdensome. Most of the time, YA took the affective assessment requirement as a burden. It could be seen from YA‟s statement that she disliked the implementation of affective assessment in Curriculum 2013. The way somebody drew a perception was based on their selectivity (Gibson et al., 1985). Thus, since YA disliked the implementation of affective assessment, it could be concluded that YA had a negative perception on the implementation of assessment in Curriculum 2013. c. The time allocation to implement the all of the assessment forms was too short Third, the time allocation to implement all of the assessment requirements was too short. As stated previously, DI only had two hours in a week to meet the students. However, most of the materials made the students have more practices than theories. On the other hand, practicing in the classroom took a long time than learning the theory. According to Gibson et al. (1985), someone‟s interest of something affected his/her perception, in which it refers to selectivity. In this case, the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013 made DI almost run out of time. Sometimes, when DI asked the students to have a role-play, to practice their English, DI had to think hard in merging the similar topics, otherwise he would be running out of time. DI also skipped some materials because of the time limitation. Having a short time allocation caused DI disliked the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013. Besides, having an incovenient time and


53 work setting also affected DI‟s negative perception on the effective time to implement all of the assessment forms (Robbins & Judge, 2012). d. The affective assessment format was subjective Fourth, the affective assessment format was subjective. In DI‟s opinion, the peer assessment, as a part of affective assessment, was very subjective. Those are the reasons why DI had a negative perception on the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013. AN also had the same opinion with DI. Based on AN‟s experience, during the implementation of assessment forms in Curriculum 2013, the peer assessment and self-assessment forms were done subjectively by the students. It made the results of the affective of the students become inaccurate. That was the reasons why DI and AN disliked the implementation of assessment in Curriculum 2013. According to Gibson et al. (1985) selectivity in drawing someone‟s perception refers to someone‟s preference. Thus, from DI and AN‟s opinion above, it could be concluded that DI and AN also had a negative perception on the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013. e. The system to fill up the assessment forms was time consuming Fifth, the system to fill up the assessment forms was time consuming. In calculating the final score for the affective assessment, the teachers still did it manually. AN said that this system was very time consuming. However, the school had already asked the IT teachers to design a website to find the most effective format for the affective assessment.


54 Besides, YA also had the same experience with AN. In terms of situation, YA stated that she worked in a rush because of having a lot of demands from the government to fulfill the assessment forms. It was also time consuming, based on YA‟s opinion. YA even stated that she did not enough time to prepare the materials. Situation affects someone‟s perception, since it also influences their feeling and habit in their daily life (Gibson et al., 1985). In terms of situation, both AN and YA thought that having a lot of assessment forms were time consuming. Meanwhile, these teachers only have a short time to fulfill and observe the three competences, namely cognitive, psychomotor, and affective. However, they also had an obligation, teaching the students. This situation made AN and YA work under pressure. Thus, being unable to manage the time and work setting made AN and YA have a negative perception on the implementation of assessment in Curriculum 2013 (Robbins and Judge, 2012).

3. Additional Factors which Influenced the Senior High School English Teachers in Implementing Curriculum 2013 There were two factors which influenced the Senior High School English teachers in implementing Curriculum 2013. They are training from the government and introduction about Curriculum 2013 from school or MGMP. The influence of those factors in the teachers‟ way of implementing Curriculum 2013 was provided as follows.


55 a. Training from Government Long before implementing Curriculum 2013, the government should have given an official training to the teachers. In Indonesia, the training is called Diklat. Diklat stands for Pendidikan dan Pelatihan. The training consisted of an explanation about the curriculum itself, how to deal with the learning methodology, and how to make the administrative requirements, such as lesson plan and assessment formats. However, based on the interview which was conducted by the researcher, not all of the participants were trained by the government. However, all of the participants in this research were taken from different schools. As stated before, the participants were teaching in three different cities. There was also one participant in this research who taught in a pilot project school. From the interview result, there was only one participant who did not get the invitation for the training from the government. This participant (AR) had the lowest understanding about Curriculum 2013, compared to the other participants who had been trained by the government. AR admitted that he did not really understand about this curriculum. It influenced his teaching performance when the school implemented Curriculum 2013. In fact, AR was often being hesitated in implementing the scientific approach and assessment. Although AR stated that he understood all of the assessment formats for the affective skill, he still got problems in differentiating between cognitive and psychomotor skill in the syllabus.


56 On the other hand, YA, DI and AN was trained by the trainer from the government. Although AN did not got the quota to attend the official training from the government, the MGMP under the school foundation had invited an instructor from government. Those participants showed better understanding on the implementation of Curriculum 2013. The problems which appeared from their experience during the implementation on Curriculum 2013 were about some technical

problems,

namely

administrations,

textbook,

and

curriculum

implementation. From the interview, it was proved that the training had not equally distributed. The other problem was that the government was not ready with the system for final examination and final report. From this result, it implied that the government did not show a good responsibility on the implementation of Curriculum 2013. b. Introduction about Curriculum 2013 from the School or MGMP Besides training from the government, the teachers should also be given additional introduction about Curriculum 2013 from school. This introduction aimed to provide further explanation about Curriculum 2013, namely lesson plan. Moreover, this introduction could facilitate the teachers‟ questions and hesitations which had not been answered in the training from the government. From the interview, all of the participants stated that they were introduced about the Curriculum 2013 by school and/or MGMP (Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran). It implied that the schools showed a good responsibility for the implementation of Curriculum 2013.


57 4. Some Strategies to Prevent the Senior High School English Teachers from Being Trapped by the Problems which Occurred in Implementing Curriculum 2013 There were four theories which were being used to analyze the teachers‟ way of implementing Curriculum 2013, namely self-agency, teacher‟s professionalism, pedagogical competence, and adult learning theory. Later, after analyzing the way the teachers implemented Curriculum 2013, the researcher stated four strategies to prevent the teachers from being trapped by the problems in implementing Curriculum 2013. The strategies were based on the ability to increase self-agency, professional competence, pedagogical competence, and transformative learning. a. Increasing the Self-agency From the analysis above, there were two internal abilities to avoid the teachers from being trapped by the administration requirements in Curriculum 2013. Assessment forms were parts of administration requirements. Besides expecting the teachers to make an innovation in the learning and teaching process, Curriculum 2013 also made the teachers trap in administrative requirements. Increasing the self-agency could be one of the strategies to prevent the teacher from being trapedd by the problems in implementing Curriculum 2013. Besides having the responsibility to increase their self-agency, the teachers should also make the students become autonomous learners. Autonomous learners needed to be able to understand the curriculum that the teachers were teaching


58 them. Besides, they needed to be responsible for their own learning and for the learning with whom they interacted (Farrel and Jacobs (2010). In terms of self-agency, AR and DI did not take administration requirement as a burden. Unconsciously, when they did not take it as a burden, they had more time to engage the students‟ autonomy and preparing a meaningful learning for the students. It was proved from AR‟s statement that his students had the ability to be autonomous learners. When the teacher and learners had a good awareness of their obligation in the learning process, it proved that the self-agency ran well. Besides, AR also implemented Zou‟s (2011) theory about student‟s autonomy. In order to make the students participate actively in the classroom, he assigned the students to work in groups. Thus, the students could gain the knowledge from the discussion with the other classmates. In terms of self-agency, YA did not give a good example in dealing with assessment forms. In this case, YA admitted that she was being burdensome with the assessment forms. However, because YA trapped in assessment forms, YA spent too much time in the assessment forms, rather than preparing a meaningful learning for the students. It was also affected the learners‟s autonomy. The learners did not have the students‟ autonomy. In fact, because YA „trapped‟ with the administrative requirements, she did not have much time to make a solution to increase the students‟ autonomy. In order to make the students participate actively, YA only made an instant breakthrough for the students, such as by rewarding an extra point.


59 b. Increasing the Professional Competence According to Undang-Undang No. 14 Tahun 2005 Pasal 10 ayat 1, professional competence means the ability to have in-depth material understanding. Increasing the professional competence could be a strategy to make an inovation in the teaching and learning activity, despite having some problems in implementing Curriculum 2013. In terms of professional competence, AN showed a good

example of having a good professional competence. Considering the needs to increase students‟ motivation, AN made a fun learning activity for the students. One of the ways which AN used to make a fun learning activity for the students was by having a discussion about the daily activities of a Korean celebrity. At that time, Korean celebrity was popular among the students. From this example, it proved that although AN also found some problems in the implementation of Curriculum 2013, she did not forget her obligation to engage students‟ motivation by attracting students‟ attention. c. Increasing the Pedagogical Competence Curriculum 2013 expected teachers to involve the learners building a critical thinking concept. Thus, the function of the teachers is no longer as the learning source. In order to engage the learners in a critical thinking concept, the teachers should have the ability to scaffold the materials based on the students‟ mastering level to make the learners find the answer or solutions of the problems in the classroom easily. Besides, according to Undang-Undang No. 14 Tahun 2005 Pasal 10 ayat 1, pedagogical competence means the ability to manage the learning process.


60 In pedagogical competence, AR, YA, DI, and AN had shown a good pedagogical competence. All of the participants said that they always scuffled the materials based on students‟ understanding. Besides, the ability to be aware of students‟ understanding in scaffolding the material was one of the examples of a good classroom management (pedagogical competence). d. Applying Transformative Learning Mezirow (2002) states that”...adult learning emphasize contextual understanding, critical reflection on assumptions, and validating meaning by assessing reasons” (p.3). These principles, then turn out into their beliefs. Thus, if the teachers are open to others‟ suggestion and feedback, they would improve the teaching performance (Mezirow, 2000). Besides improving teaching performance, the teachers would also enrich their understanding towards many issues related to the development of education. All of the participants of this research stated that they were open to others‟ suggestion and feedback, especially the students and fellow teachers. AR, YA, DI, and AN always tried to appreciate the students feedback, even if the suggestions were given in the middle of a learning activity. On the other hand, among the three of them, DI had the lowest interaction with other fellow teachers. DI rarely got a suggestion from other fellow teachers. From this difference, it showed that AR, YA and AN were more up-to-date with the information about Curriculum 2013, compared to DI. It happened because AR, YA and AN had more interaction with other fellow teachers. This interaction boosted their selfwillingness to upgrade the knowledge about the latest information of the


61 curriculum implementation. Thus, being reflective to others‟ suggestions, made the teachers construct their knowledge in implementing Curriculum 2013.


CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

There are two parts in this chapter. The first part presents the conclusions of the research. Meanwhile, the second part presents some suggestions for the improvement of Curriculum 2013.

A. Conclusions Curriculum 2013 aimed to change the learning paradigm by bringing the scientific approach as a breakthrough. Through the scientific approach, Curriculum 2013 tried to apply the observing, questioning, associating, experimenting and creating/networking as the primary process of the teaching and learning activity. With the scientific method, the students were expected to have the passion to dig out the objective truth. Besides, there were three domains which were being assessed in this curriculum, namely cognitive, affective, and psychomotor competence. Based on the participants’ opinions, Curriculum 2013 had a good purpose, in which to change the teaching and learning paradigm. However, the participants had a negative perception on the implementation

of Curriculum

2013. There were various opinions from the participants related to the implementation of Curriculum 2013. First, the implementation of Curriculum 2013 seemed to be in a rush (DI-South Tangerang). Second, the participants were 62


63 not ready to implement this curriculum (AR-Jogjakarta, YA-Jogjakarta, DI-South Tangerang, and AN-North Jakarta). Third, the implementation of Curriculum 2013 was lack of preparation (AR-Jogjakarta and DI-South Tangerang). Fourth, the applications for Core Competences and Basic Competences in Curriculum 2013 were unclear (AR-Jogjakarta). Fifth, Curriculum 2013 was complicated (YA-Jogjakarta). Sixth, Curriculum 2013 made the students choose their discipline in early grade (AN-North Jakarta). Similar to the first finding, the Senior High Shool English teachers also had a negative perception on the implementation of the assessment in Curriculum 2013. First, the participant had a problem to differenciate between cognitive and psychomotor assessment (AR-Jogjakarta). Second, the assessment requirements were burdensome (YA-Jogjakarta). Third, the time allocation to implement all of the assessment requirements was too short (DI-Yogyakarta). Fourth, the affective assessment format was subjective (DI-Jogjakarta and AN-North Jakarta). Fifth, the system to fill up the assessment forms was time consuming (AN-North Jakarta). Besides, the researcher found three factors which influenced the way teachers implemented Curriculum 2013. The first one was training from the government. One from three participants had not received the training from the government. The second one was the introduction about Curriculum 2013 from the school or MGMP (Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran). Although the training from the government was not distributed equally, those participants had already been introduced about the Curriculum 2013 by the school foundation or MGMP


64 (Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran). The teachers who were trained by the government and school showed a better understanding about the implementation of Curriculum 2013. From this result, it implied that the school showed a better responsibility for implementation of Curriculum 2013 than the government. There were three internal skills which could be improved form the teachers to prevent them from being trapped by the problems which occurred in the implementation of Curriculum 2013, included the implementation of assessment. The first one was increasing the self-agency. The second one was increasing the professional and pedagogical competence. The third one was applying the transformative learning.

B. Suggestions For the suggestions, the researcher also combined her suggestion with the participants’ suggestions. The participants’ suggestions were gained from the interview. In these suggestions, the researcher gave some suggestions to the other researchers, the teachers, and the government. 1. The other researchers For the other researchers, this research can be used to conduct other research related to the implementation of Curriculum 2013. There are various perceptions from the teachers about the implementation of Curriculum 2013. Based on this research, there are chances to make some solutions for the problems which occur during the implementation of Curriculum 2013.


65 2. The teachers For the teachers, this research can give inspiration on how to deal with the challenges, not only in terms of curriculum implementation, but also in terms of teachers’ competences. Technically, the implementation of Curriculum 2013 is needed to be improved. However, there are some strategies that the teacher should have in order to encounter the problems. 3. Government For the government, the researcher hopes that before implementing the Curriculum 2013, the government should make sure that every teacher has already got the training from the government. The government needs to have more credible experts to formulate the curriculum and explain it to the teachers. Thus, the teachers will have the same understanding about the implementation for this curriculum. Besides, the government still needs to improve the preparation in implementing Curriculum 2013. Before assigning the schools to implement this curriculum, it will be better if the schools have one year for the trial. If the government wants to implement this curriculum, the government should also be ready with the textbook, final report, and the National Examination (Ujian Nasional) system. In terms of time allocation, the government needs to extend the time allocation, especially English. The participants said that two hours were not enough to implement the scientific approach, especially when the teachers had to assess the students. In terms of the affective assessment requirements, the researcher hopes that the government will reformulate a better system for the


66 affective

assessment

requirements.

Therefore,

requirements will not be burdensome for the teachers.

the

affective

assessment


REFERENCES

Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. London: Routledge. Arifin, Z. (2011). Konsep dan model pengembangan kurikulum. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th ed.). New York: Wordsworth Thomson Learning. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). New York: Wordsworth Thomson Learning. Atman, S., Valenzi, E., & Hodgetts, R. M. (1985). Organizational behavior theory and practice. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Bicknell-Holmes, T., & Hoffman, P. S. (2000). Elicit, engage, experience, explore: Discovery learning in library instruction. Reference Services Review, 28(4), 313-322. Braslavsky, C. (2005). The curriculum. Retrieved June 15, 2015, from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/AIDS/doc/cecilia _e.pdf Budiraharjo, M. (2013). A phenomenological study of Indonesian cohort group's transformative learning. Retrieved June 15, 2015, from http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/507 Castronova, J. A. (n,d). Discovery learning for the 21st century: What is and how does it compare to traditional learning in effectiveness in the 21st century? Retrieved August 10, 2015 from http://teach.valdosta.edu/are/litreviews/ vol1no1/castronovalitr.pdf Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Farrell, T. S. C., & Jacobs, G. (2010). Essentials in language teaching. London: Continuum Press. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Gibson, J. L., Ivanovich, J. M., & Donelly, J. H. Jr. (1985). Organizations: Structure, processes, behavior. Texas: Business Publication, Inc 67


68 Hoffman, D. D. (2009). The interface theory of perception: Natural selection drives true perception to swift extinction. Retrieved June 20, 2015 from http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/interface.pdf Huffman, L., Vernoy, M., & Vernoy, J. (2000). Psychology in action (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley & Sons. Inc. Jarvis, P. (2006). The theory and practice of teaching. New York: Routledge. Kelly, A. M. (2004). The curriculum: Theory and practice (6th ed.). London: Sage Publications. Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2014). Materi pelatihan guru implementasi kurikulum 2013 tahun 2014: Mata pelajaran Bahasa Inggris SMA/SMK. Jakarta: Badan Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan dan Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan. Levine, A. (1981). Handbook on undergraduate curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Marshall, G. M. (1998). Questionnaire designs: Asking questions with a purpose. Texas: The Texas A&M University System. Merriam, S. B. (2001). The new update on adult learning theory. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J. et al. (2000). Learning as transformation. Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mouly, G. J. (1973). Psychology for effective learning. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Mulyasa, E. (2005). Kurikulum berbasis kompetensi: Konsep karakteristik, dan implementasi. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya. Nad. (2013, February, 21). New national curriculum leaves teachers, experts confused. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved June 10, 2014, from http://www.thejakartapost.com Paradewari, D. S. (2015). ELESP students’ perception on the use of scripted role play to improve speaking ability in play performance class. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from https://repository.usd.ac.id/814/


69 Priestley, M. (1982). Performance assessment in education and training: Alternative techniques. Englewood Cliffs: Eduational Technology Publications, Inc. Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research–quantitative & qualitative approaches. London: World Press. Purwanto. (2009). Evaluasi hasil belajar. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar. Pusat Kurikulum Balitbang Depdiknas. (2008). Pusat kurikulum balitbang Depdiknas. Retrieved September 17, 2015, from www.puskur.net Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2012). Organizational behavior (15th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Rouse, M. (2007), Implementation definition. Retrieved July 21, 2015, from http://searchcrm.techtarget.com/definition/implementation Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of the scientific method in American schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45(3), 341376. Sadelowski, M. (2000). Focus on research methods: Whatever happened to qualitative description? Retrieved August 16, 2014, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.4974&rep=re p1&type=pdf Seidman, I. E., (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researcher in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press. Shaughnessy, J., Zechmeister, E., & Jeanne, Z. (2011). Research methods in psychology (9th ed.) (pp. 161–175). New York: McGraw Hill. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. Squires, G. (1990). First degree: The undergraduate curriculum. London: Society for Research into Higher Education. Sugiyono. (2005). Memahami penelitian kualitatif. Bandung: ALFABETA. Szilagyi, A. D., & Wallace, M. J. (1980). Organizational behaviour and performances. Santa Monica: Good Year Publishing Company. Taylor, H. (1950). Essays in teaching. New York: Harper.


70 Ufie, A. (2013). Kearifan lokal (local wisdom) budaya Ain Ni Ain masyarakat Kei sebagai sumber belajar sejarah lokal untuk memperkokoh kohesi sosial siswa. Retrieved August 16, 2015, from perpustakaan.upi.edu Vernez, G., Karam, R., & Marshal, J.H. (2012). Impelementation of school-based management in Indonesia. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. Wick, M., & Pick, M. (1978). Ecological study of learning. New York: Harper and Row. Widarsa, A.N. (2013, July 29). New 2013 curriculum for new school year in Indonesia. Global Indonesian Voice. Retrieved June 15, 2015, from http://www.globalindonesianvoices.com Worchel, S. & Shebilske, W. (1989). Psychology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, Inc. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Inc. Zou, X. (2011). What happens in different contexts and how to do learner autonomy better? Teacher development, 15(4), 421-433.


APPENDICES


APPENDIX A

QUESTIONS GUIDELINE

71


72 1. Apa pendapat Bapak/Ibu mengenai K 13? 2. Apakah Bapak/Ibu mendapat pelatihan dari pemerintah maupun yayasan tentang K 13? Kapan Bapak/Ibu mendapatkan sosialisasi tersebut? Apakah pelatihan dan sosialisasi semacam ini cukup untuk Bapak/Ibu? Apakah bapak/Ibu mencari informasi sendiri untuk lebih memahami k13? 3. Mengenai implementasi K 13 yang Bapak/Ibu terapkan di sekolah, apakah Bapak/Ibu sudah cukup puas dengan implementasi yang sudah Bapak/Ibu jalankan selama ini? Apa saja kesulitan dan hambatanya? 4. Sejauh ini, sebetulnya apakah Bapak/Ibu siap menerapkan K 13 itu sendiri? 5. Bagaimana pendapat Bapak/Ibu mengenai evaluasi dan aspek penilaian di K 13? Apakah Bapak/Ibu mengalami kesulitan untuk memahami dan menerapkan aspek penilaian yang K 13 berikan? Bagaimana cara Bapak/Ibu mengatasi kesulitan tersebut? Apa siasat Bapak/Ibu dalam menyiasati ketentuan aspek penilaian yang K 13 berikan untuk mengukur kemampuan siswi? 6. Bagaimana dengan penyajian hasil pencapaian siswi dalam rapport akhir semester dengan K13 kemarin? 7. Menurut Bapak/Ibu, sistem penilaian atau evaulasi yang baik untuk mengukur kemampuan siswi seperti apa? Bagaimana dengan evaluasi yang pada dasarnya memiliki ketentuan validity, authenticity, practicality, reliability ini dengan munculnya aspek penilaian K 13 bisa diterapkan dengan mudah oleh Bapak/Ibu atau tidak? 8. Perkembangan kurikulum memaksa guru untuk fleksibel dengan hal-hal administratif. Guru ditantang untuk selalu update dengan informasi dari pusat, peraturan pendidikan, dan lain-lain. Apakah Bapak/Ibu cukup tertekan dengan hal semacam ini? Apakah sempat mengganggu Bapak/Ibu dalam menjalankan tugas utama Bapak/Ibu sebagai pendidik? Bagaimana cara Bapak/Ibu membiasakan diri dengan hal-hal berbau administratif ini? Bagaimana cara Bapak/Ibu mengupdate informasi terkini mengenai perkembangan kurikulum yang ada? 9. Menurut Bapak/Ibu kurikulum yang baik itu seperti apa? Apakah hanya sebatas alat ukur kelulusan siswa dari mata pelajaran yang diajarkan, atau sebagai acuan proses siswa dalam mengembangkan potensi dari dalam dirinya (akademis dan non-akademis), atau bagaimana? 10. Selama Bapak/Ibu menerapkan K13 apakah Bapak/Ibu menerapkan sistem students’ autonomy? Sejauh apa penerapanya?


73 11. Sebagai agen pendidik, bagaimana cara Bapak/Ibu memahami kebutuhan siswa dan menggabungkanya dengan tuntutan aspek penilaian yang diberikan K13 agar tidak menjadi beban bagi siswa itu sendiri? 12. Selama K 13 berlangsung, apakah Bapak/Ibu mengikuti seluruh tahapan pendekatan saintifik secara runtut atau menyesuaikanya dengan tahapan pemahaman siswa? 13. Apa saja upaya Bapak/Ibu dalam mendorong siswa untuk berpikir kreatif dan menemukan solusi dari permasalahan yang ada? 14. Apakah Bapak/Ibu tergolong tipe guru yang terbuka terhadap saran dan masukan baik dari sesama rekan guru, siswa maupun orang tua? 15. Menghadapi siswi SMA dengan karakter yang berbeda-beda, bagaimana cara Bapak/Ibu memberikan motivasi dan menumbuhkan semangat/keinginan belajar dari dalam diri siswi? 16. Apa saja saran maupun kritik Bapak/Ibu mengenai K 13?


APPENDIX B

HORIZONALIZATION

74


75 Initial AN Horizonalization No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Horizontalization Sebenarnya lebih suka Kurikulum 2006, karena kalau Kurikulum 2006 IPA/IPS dari kelas XI jadi kan di kelas X mereka tahu dulu standarnya. Kalau di kurikulum 2013 mereka, IPA/IPS dari kelas X standarnya dari SMP yang berbeda, jadi untuk menyamakan standarnya agak susah. Jadi, anak sendiri kurang tahu sebenernya IPA itu kaya apa, IPS kaya apa. Jadi kalau 2006 itu anak-anak lihat dulu, sehingga di kelas XI nya mereka bisa nentuin mau IPA atau IPS. Kita mandu anaknya lebih enak. Kasih introduction kelas X istilahnya semua mata pelajaran, baru di kelas XI nya mereka memilih. Itu lebih terpandu kalau kelas X, kadang mereka bingung juga, udah di IPA, setahun gak kuat pindah karena bayangannya IPA gampang padahal nggak juga karena standarnya belum ada. SMP standarnya beda-beda. Jadi kita ada MGMP, terus MGMP itu yang menentukan, kurikulum 2013 itu pelatihannya dari MGMP. Kalau dari pemerintah sendiri dapat kalau kita panggil. Kemarin dibagi soalnya kan kita ada 13 sekolah jadi kan sekolah tempat Saya itu Matematika, Sejarah sama Bahasa Indonesia yang resmi dari pemerintah. Terus dari Bahasa Inggris dari SMAK yang lain. Kalau dari pemerintah sendiri itu menyediakan. Cuma waktu itu karena kita 13 sekolah dibagi biar merata gitu. Pas Bahasa Inggris bukan di sekolah saya mengajar tetapi di sekolah yang lain. Yang bagi yayasan. Jadi biar saling info di MGMP. Kalau pelatihan dan sosialisasinya itu bentuknya panggil pembicara. Panggil pembicara. Lalu, dia nerangin kurikulum 2013 itu seperti apa garis besarnya. Tahun 2013 kemarin sekolah pilot project. Mau ngga mau, suka ngga suka, ditunjuk. Pada waktu masuk sebenernya kita belum tahu itu seperti apa. Bahkan Kepala Sekolahnya pun masih belum tahu juga, tapi karena udah gerak cepat kita pelatihan itu 1 atau 2 bulan sudah masuk. Tahun 2013 itu langsung pake karena sekolah pilot project. Masih meraba-raba. Masih baru. Jadi intinya waktu itu, waktu Kurikulum 2013 kita belum tahu pasti, masih saling bertanya sama temen. Jadi, waktu menjalani pertama itu masih banyak, banyak belajar. Pas yang kedua udah mulai tahu. Ketiga sudah mulai paham. Butuh waktu memang. Karena waktu itu masih bener-bener ngga tahu. Karena kan waktu itu kan mendadak banget. Ngga ada contoh. Juni-Juli Kurikulum 2013. Juli itu kita masuk, Juni ditunjuk. Kendalanya, yang pertama mungkin kepala sekolah, peminatan sama lintas minat apa bedanya pendalaman, karena strukturnya bener-bener berubah.

Comment [W81]: Perception on the implementation of C13

Comment [W82]: Factor 1 Training from the government Factor 2 Socialization from MGMP


76 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

Berbeda sekali dengan Kurikulum 2006, kita masih adaptasi dengan kurikulum yang baru. Jadi, Bahasa Inggris itu sekarang, kalau dulu Kurikulum 2006 istilahnya wajib, semua dapet di Kurikulum 2013 itu Bahasa Inggris wajib, Bahasa Inggris lintas minat dan silabusnya sendiri gitu jadi kita 2 tahun ini masih adaptasi. Tetapi yang di tahun ke 2 ini lebih baik karena udah sesuai pertama percobaan. MGMP kita salah bareng bener juga bareng gitu. Di tahun kedua ini udah mulai bener. Kesiapan, masih belajar ya masih fifty-fifty, belum terlalu siap. Kalau di Kurikulum 13 RPP itu ada yang namanya 5M. 5M intinya anak mengamati dulu, abis mengamati anak itu kita kasih warming-up activityK. Kita mau belajar passive, misalnya, anak ngamati dulu kita kasih gambar-gambar mengasosiasikan, nanti kita tarik beberapa anak menanyakan. Pertanyaanpertanyaan untuk memicu untuk memicu anak-anak, terus abis itu mengkomunikasikan anak-anak dalam kelompok dengan pancingan gurunya mereka menyimpulkan passive itu kaya apa polannya. Kaya apa anak-anak itu mempresentasikan dalam kelompok. Coba kelompok ini kamu terangin passive tuh kaya apa kamu terangin polanya apa coba kamu terangin digunakannya kapan, misalnya, terus yang terakhir menyimpulkan. Jadi, intinya kalau Kurikulum 13 itu anak yang menemukan karena scientific learning, jadi anak-anak dibagi, kita pancing dulu mereka ngamatin abis itu anak dibagi dulu dalam kelompok mereka mengasosiasikan. Terus, dalam kelompok mereka mengkomunikasikan, maju dalam kelompok, mempresentasikan. Terus nanti bareng-bareng menyimpulkan jadi intinya mereka istilahnya mereka discovery learning, mereka belajar sendiri tapi dipandu oleh guru. Soal kecocokan, masih fifty-fifty, karena baru 2 tahun. Beberapa materi cocok, ada beberapa materi yang kurang. Masuknya tuh dipaksa masuknya ngga siap. Kelebihannya Kurikulum 2013 anak-anak menemukan sendiri. Kekuranganya, kalau kita terus-terusan begitu, anak ngga mantep juga belajarnya, nemuin sendiri. Kalau Kurikulum 2006 kita pandu dengan presentasi guru. Aku di kesimpulannya dimantepin, memang bagusnya mereka diskus, nemuin, nanti guru baru mengarahkan ada yang kurang atau apa diarahin. Ada 3 aspek nilai, pengetahuan, biasanya aspek kognitif itu bisa langsung adaptasi. Terus kalo keterampilan, psikomotorik masih bisa. Tapi yang kalau kita masih agak bingung itu nilai sikap itu ada 3, ada observasi guru itu ada 5 indicator. Habis itu anak itu menilai diri sendiri itu juga ada 5 indicator dan teman sebaya 5 indicator. Kalau guru objektif, tetapi kalau siswa yang baik kadang malah merasa kurang baik, seharusnya anaknya 5,

Comment [W83]: Teacher’s Readines


77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117

kalau yang baik ngasih diri sendiri 4. Jadi, masih kurang objektif justru kalau yang tanda kutip justru diambil yang bagus. Kalau anak yang tahu diri menurut saya kurang objektif karena ngasih form pokoknya udah kita pandu kalo nilainya objektif. Tapi yang namanya anak SMA yang menguntungkan mereka kurang objektif dan itu yang menurut kita sangat merepotkan harus merekap lagi minimal 5 anak jadi 1 anak dinilai 5. Jadi, kesulitannya yang pertama nilainya kurang objektif yang kedua tekhnisnya kita masih merekap karena guru IT baru meramu webnya supaya anak bisa masuk langsung mengisi gitu. Jadi, 2 tahun ini kita masih manual dan itu takes time. Kemarin itu kita ngikutin pemerintah. Jadi pertama kita pakai puluhan terus di rappor kita konversi tinggal ABC apa itu ABAB gitu Cuma range nilainya itu anak itu udah tau misalnya A itu rangenya 85-90 misalnya 95100 B itu berapa anak itu udah tau jadi di rapportnya ABAB jadi Bahasa Inggris Wajib anak dapat 85 berarti itu nanti di rapport B masih konversi. Untuk pengetahuan atau keterampilan bisa lakukan sendiri kalo yang afektif atau sikap, kalau dulu namanya afektif, yang Kurikulum 2013 sikap jadi kan baiknya afektif itu dinilai guru teman sebaya dan diri sendiri. Cuma kadang ini ngga objektif jadi maunya ada instrumen lain yang kayanya guru cukup untuk guru objektif, punya data. Kesulitannya untuk penilaian sikap perlu dicarikan formula yang lebih baik lagi. Wajib itu ada teori itu written test ada juga yang lab. Nah, itu kan yang ada speaking test, listening test, writing test di lab. Terus nanti ada lintas minat itu kalo yang kemarin kita udah jalanin itu kaya Inggris-Sastranya banyak presentasi banyak projek. Nilainya macem-macem semua ada kalau Bahasa Inggris. Karena Bahasa skillnya kan 4. Jadi, kan teori atau yang kalo biasa kita bilang Inggris wajib itu kita nilai. Kalo anak remed ya remed. Kan kita 75, di bawah 75 ya remed. Termasuk yang lab. Kan speaking nih speaking kalo anak ngga pantes 75 ya remed writing kalo anak ga dapet 75 ya ngulang. Jadi sistemnya semua dinilai. Kalo bahasa cocok semua kalo skill itu semua harus dinilai ngga cuma writtennya dinilai. Berusaha menerapkan student’s autonomy. Sebenarnya Kurikulum 2006 mirip Kurikulum 2013. Jadi, selalu mancing anak kasih warming up, kasih gambar, warming up, terus kaya form-form gitu mereka isi jadi udah terpandu di situ. Jadi, udah terbiasa juga di Kurikulum 2006 ngga mentahmentah anak dapet. Tergantung, kalau dari RPP kita dibekali dengan 5M, kalau di bahasa kita 5M, intinya mengamati, mengasosiasikan, mengkomunikasikan, mempresentasikan, terus menyimpulkan. Sejauh ini saya berusaha ke situ. Tetapi ada 1-2 materi kan yang ngga sinkron. Jadi tergantung situasi dan

Comment [W84]: Perception on the implementation of assessment

Comment [W85]: Problems in implementing assessment

Comment [W86]: Self-agency


78 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157

kondisi kelas aja. Kan kita ada RPP itu dibuat bareng-bareng, bahkan RPP itu dibuat se-yayasan gitu jadi at least kita ada panduannya nanti pas ngajar past participle, past simple, nah di kepala tuh udah ada cuma di RPP udah ada panduannya di lapangannya kita berusaha menerapkan itu tuh Cuma kadang 1-2 materi itu tidak akan sesuai RPP karena kan kita liat inisiatif kelas liat kondisi anak, liat reaksi anak. Lihat pemahaman siswa juga. Administratif, ya tergantung. Pertama, kita butuh adaptasi dari pertama Kurikulum 2006 terus ke Kurikulum 2013, secara fisik itu beda. Yang dimaksud ini apa sih itu apa sih biasanya yang pertama itu kita butuh perjuanagandengan temen di kelompok masing-masing. Nah, itu kalau udah setahun-dua tahun berjalan udah ngga masalah administrasi. Paling yang kemarin 2013 itu sih karena penasaran tapi ngga intens banget. Cuma kita lebih RPP ya karena lebih practice kita orang lapangan. Jadi, apa sih 5M bedanya dengan Kurikulum 2006 tapi karena udah dapet backgroudnya dari sekolah. Bahkan sekolah pun ngasih tau ke orang tua jadi at least. Tetapi kalau aku lebih ke practice sebenernya. Apa sih 5M apa sih scientific learning. Sebagai acuan proses mengembangkan potensi siswa secara akademis dan non-akademis. Karena selama ini mereka ngga hanya apa master the knowledge ya tapi prosesnya juga penting, bagaimana mereka dapat knowledge itu nanti kan dihubungkan dengan kehidupan segala macem jadi lebih cocok yang kedua. Dan selama ini memang saya ngga hanya ngajar knowledge, attitude juga penting. Nanti juga ada general knowledge yang masuk. Selalu dihubung-hubungkan. Jadi mereka ngga hanya presentasi di kelas itu apa, tapi selalu menghubungkan dengan dunia luar biar mereka konteksnya juga dapet. Biasanya dari materi kita pancing ya baisanya kan waktu awal masuk kita merenung ya bacaan ini kayaknya cukup menarik nih kayak dulu Sophie’s World. Dunia Sophie dia philosophical banget jadi Saya setelah ini nyuruh anak untuk bikin satu filosofi ya kayak Sophie ini menurut kamu apa. Jadi tergantung materinya. Biasanya setelah kita beberapa kali mengajar kita ada ide. Oh ini dulu diterapkan di kelas A kok kayaknya kurang ini ya kurang cocok karena kan kita kan langsung paham, coba besok tahun depan ngajar materi yang sama mungkin akan diubah apanya. Mendorong motivasi tergantung dari cara kita nyampein. Ada guru yang kontekstual, ngajar present tense yaudah gitu doang. Kalau saya kan selalu dihubung-hubungkan jadi siswa ngga hanya tau grammar doang, tetapi juga ada ininya kalo anak itu nyambung misalnya pertama pampangin biografinya See Won, Suju, Super Junior, tiap pagi ini, habitualnya dia dari sini kan anak tertarik bisa nyimpulin jadi Saya tuh selalu berusaha ngga

Comment [W87]: Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Comment [W88]: Self-agency

Comment [W89]: Professional Competence


79 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197

hanya present tense itu apa kegunaanya itu apa ngga gitu tapi langsung dihubungkan dengan dunia luar contohnya. Jadi anak itu nanti 1-2 channel pasti nyambung deh dengan anak. Ngga semua memang. Misalnya kayak di kelas itu tadi nyambung nih yang Saya paparin See Won’s Daily Activity misalnya dengan fotonya dengan apa pagi-pagi dia olahraga, belum tentu, berarti harus diganti. Beberapa kadang kan kita di kelas maksudnya bilang apa ditulisnya apa kadang anak “Miss itu bukannya ini?”, “Oh ya ya Missnya yang salah”. Aku terbuka. Misalnya kalo memang sekali dua kali kan kita salah ngomong atau salah grammar harusnya are, namanya juga ini ya kadang di kepala bilang ini setelah ini terus anak “Miss itu bukanya ini ya Miss?” “Oh yaya ini Missnya yang salah harusnya ini” aku selalu terbuka bukan egonya tinggi memang kan grammar yang selalu pasti kita salah. Sama temen di feedback kadang kalo kita kelompok ini kan misalnya kita kan satu paralel nanti ulangan harian 1 aku yang buat ualngan 2 dia yang buat habis ulangan kan ditelaah. Silahkan, aku ngga pernah marah kan kita butuh reader ya. Aku selalu terbuka. Karena memang kita team. Dan itu nanti yang kalo di tempat saya tuh kita akan saling telaah jadi kan kita semester ini dibagi nih. Semester ini ulangan harian misalnya ulangan harian Miss Olive yang buat bahanya ini ini ini ulangan harian 2 saya yang buat ualangan harian 3, temen yang buat kita udah ada panduannya misalnya kan ulangan misalnya ulangan harian hari Senin nanti ahri Kamis harus udah jadi terus ditelaah dibenerin jadi intinya tuh istilahnya sebelum soal itu dimasukin soal itu udah harus bener. Kalo anaknya pinter kita motivasi ok goodkeep up the good workbahkan di kertas ininya apa aku selalu ngasih misalnya anaknya dapet 100 tambahin kadang gambar tersenyum atau misalnya Horeeeee! Gitu kan kadang Keep up the good work! Tapi kalo anakny kurang misalnya tergantung anaknya ya kalo anaknya terbuka yang nyantai tapi ininya kurang ini juga agak fun C’mon. Selalu dimotivasiin jadi termasuk di kelas kalo ada anak pinter kita motivasi kita muter kita kasih apa kalo belum kita kasih motivasi dengan pancingan-pancingan. Sebaiknya kalau mau ada kurikulum baru harus ada percobaan dulu. Percobaan setahun. Maksudnya jangan Juni 2013 mulai langsung mulai gitu karena memang pemerintah ga siap yang kasih penataran ga siap apalagi kita. Kemarin yang itu salah, pemerintah harusnya kalo Kurikulum 2013 dari 2012 itu kita udah dibekali. Kemarin salahnya Kurikulum 2013 masuk Kurikulum 2013 dipakai. Tahun pertama kurang persiapan karena kita yang natar kita cecer pertanyaan juga dia ngga tahu “ Saya ngga tau Pak, Saya ngga tau Bu, Saya juga baru ini.”

Comment [W810]: Adult Learning Theory

Comment [W811]: Suggestions


80


APPENDIX C

LEMBAR PERSETUJUAN MENJADI INFORMAN

80


81 LEMBAR PERSETUJUAN MENJADI INFORMAN

Saya yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini menyatakan bersedia menjadi Informan penelitian yang dilakukan oleh mahasiswa Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta yang bernama Fransiska Stefanny Olive Kurniawan, dengan judul “Senior High SchoolEnglish Teacher’s Perception to The Implementation of 2013 Curriculum.” Saya mengerti bahwa penelitian ini tidak menimbulkan dampak negatif dan data mengenai diri saya dalam penelitian ini akan dijaga kerahasiaannya oleh peneliti. Semua berkas yang mencantumkan identitas saya hanya akan digunakan untuk keperluan pengolahan data dan bila sudah tidak digunakan akan dimusnahkan. Hanya peneliti yang dapat mengetahui kerahasiaan data-data penelitian. Demikian, secara suka rela dan tidak ada unsur paksaan dari siapapun saya bersedia berperan serta dalam penelitian ini.

Yogyakarta, 14 Juli 2015

(

)


APPENDIX D

APPROACH TO PARTICIPANT

82


83 APPROACH TO PARTICIPANT

This page contained the sequence that the researcher used to ask for participants’ permission to be the participants of this research. This page was made as a part of researcher’s way to make the results of this research became more objective. Before the researcher interviewed the participants, the researcher sent SMS (Short Message Service) or chat through BBM (Blackberry Messenger) and Whatsapp to ask for the participants’ willingness to be the research participants.

1. The researcher greets and introduces herself. Researcher: Good morning, Mrs./Mr. I’m sorry for bothering. My name is Olive. 2. The researcher asks for the participant’s willingness to be the research participant. Researcher: Do you mind being my research participant? 3. The researcher explains the objectives of this research. Researcher: This study is made to figure out the Senior High School English teachers’ perception on the implementation of Curriculum 2013. Besides, this study is also made to figure out the Senior High School English teachers’ perception on the implementation of assessment in Curriculum 2013. 4. After getting the participant’s agreement, the researcher set the time and place to conduct the interview. Researcher: What time will you be available this week, Mrs./Mr.? 5. After making an appointment, the researcher conducts the interview with the participant. Then, the researcher thanks the participant and asked for his/her signature in LEMBAR PERSETUJUAN MENJADI INFORMAN. Researcher: Thank you for your time to participate in this interview. Would you like to sign here? 6. After the interview has done, the researcher analyzes the results of the interview. Then, the researcher gives the summary of the findings to the participant while asking for his/her approval toward the findings.

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Recommend Documents